"Chance to Withdraw."

[ridjack]

Does anyone like having this promotion on their units? I was going to just put up a poll about nuking it from orbit, but I figured I should see some discussion first.

I hate it, personally. It's intentionally inconsistent, the mechanics that lower the chance are opaque, and quite honestly I don't generally want my units withdrawing. I can't even plan around the withdrawal, because there's no way to guarantee it will or won't happen.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

When I tell a military unit to occupy a tile, it is 100% including the intention for that unit to deny the enemy occupation of that tile or die trying. Every time.

Chance to withdraw either should trigger only on death, or be balanced like a drawback.

 

[Rekk]

I like it. It forces the player to use the unit's differently. It may be used too liberally and maybe should, as it should be going on units that aren't intended to be part of the main combat push. A unit with this promotion should no longer be used on the defense, which is a problem if it modifies something that would irmally be used to do so. This relegates it to recon opportunists, skirmishers and submarines; that is, units with high base mobility that you don't want to get hit in the first place. Alhambra forces knights and lancers to stop being able to defend, but landships+ go back to the role.

I think it's somewhat complicated for a fast (>2 move unit) to reduce its defender's withdraw chance by X per move, especially when it doesn't take into account the defender's moves. However fast units would generally be able to continue attacking the unit with its extra movement if it hadn't already spent it's attack, so maybe it's fine.

 

[ridjack]

Chance to withdraw either should trigger only on death, or be balanced like a drawback.

I would also be okay with it being 100% of the time, no "chance" nonsense. That's what really gets me; I don't want that kind of RNG in warfare.

This relegates it to recon opportunists, skirmishers and submarines; that is, units with high base mobility that you don't want to get hit in the first place.

But if I don't want them to get hit, I'll move them somewhere they're not going to get hit. If I move a "chance to withdraw" unit into a situation where it's likely to get hit in melee, I've already either a) accepted that unit's death as a cost of what I wanted to do, or b) calculated that it's not going to die and I'll withdraw it on my own the next turn. The chance to withdraw might have a minor benefit in the first case, where it survives when I intended for it not to. In the second case, all it's doing is complicating my life and giving the enemy a tile I probably didn't want them to have; I'm forced to plan for two different possible situations based on what my unit decides to do without my input and entirely based on RNG.

I just don't see a use case.

 

[Rekk]

But if I don't want them to get hit, I'll move them somewhere they're not going to get hit.

It is frequently not possible to do this and attack/pillage at the same time. The promotion reduces the risk of these kinds of actions.

In the second case, all it's doing is complicating my life and giving the enemy a tile I probably didn't want them to have;

In this case, I would have chosen a different unit to put in that tile.

 

[Hinin]

As some of you know, I tend to very much hate random-based mechanics. That said, I make an exception for this one, that I consider interesting and relevant for three reasons :

• In the same way some factions are designed to heigten the incertitude of enemy gameplan's (for example Halflings in Age of wonder III, which all can take half damage from enemy attacks, based on luck), I consider "chance to withdraw" promotions a risk-creating mechanic for the enemy : if your unit withdraws, not only does the enemy unit finds itself more advanced than wanted, but with a enemy unit next to it (so an increased risk of ZOC or flanking penalty). Thus, if a faction or category of units is designed to harbor such a plan-foiling mechanic, I'm ok with.
  
• It is chance-based, but it is very much possible to heigten the chances by creating space between your units and avoiding battles with mounted units. Thus, it is a mechanic that, in order to work properly, requires you to change the way you use your units. I personally consider that a mechanic that increases player choices / interactivity has its place.
• Finally, on a more meta POV, having a mechanic meant to represent the uncertainty of warfare, especially against light troops capable of using skirmish tactics, is a big yes for me. As Clausewitz said : "No plan survives contact with the enemy."

Of course, putting too much of this mechanic would render it obnoxious, but if used in a measured way I see no problem.

P.S. : That said, I intend to make a kit one day that relies on such randomness (but in that case, the entire kit would rely on it, in the same way Halflings in AoW3 worked around luck).

 

[JamesNinelives]

Well said @Hinin. I like chance to withdraw. I guess that's probably for the same reason that I like ancient ruins while a lot of people can't stand them - I'm willing to accept RNG as part of the game.

I will say that if you're playing on high difficulties and every single move counts then yeah you want to know your positioning precisely. It's understandable that the benefit of an enemy overextending themself might be relatively little compared to having your own plans disrupted.

But other than that I really can't see the drawback. This promotion mainly occurs on ranged mounted units which I generally do not use to hold a position anyway. For people who don't have complex plans that rely on careful positioning it's almost always a benefit.

I think it's particularly useful on camel archers, which I find are generally not tanky enough that I want melee units to hit them to begin with. So while I'm happy to agree that it's not a mechanic that should be everywhere, I don't think that's a good reason to remove it entirely. As much as we want to control the world around us, in a lot of cases war is chaos. I personally find games where you can reliably predict things that happen in a battle eventually feel a bit contrived.

 

[Hinin]

Well said @Hinin. I like chance to withdraw. I guess that's probably for the same reason that I like ancient ruins while a lot of people can't stand them - I'm willing to accept RNG as part of the game.

I will say that if you're playing on high difficulties and every single move counts then yeah you want to know your positioning precisely. It's understandable that the benefit of an enemy overextending themself might be relatively little compared to having your own plans disrupted.

But other than that I really can't see the drawback. This promotion mainly occurs on ranged mounted units which I generally do not use to hold a position anyway. For people who don't have complex plans that rely on careful positioning it's almost always a benefit.

I think it's particularly useful on camel archers, which I find are generally not tanky enough that I want melee units to hit them to begin with. So while I'm happy to agree that it's not a mechanic that should be everywhere, I don't think that's a good reason to remove it entirely. As much as we want to control the world around us, in a lot of cases war is chaos. I personally find games where you can reliably predict things that happen in a battle eventually feel a bit contrived.

The Ancient Ruins system, I'm less enthusiastic. I sincerely hope there will be a rework for the bonuses it gives so that the variance it allows isn't excessive. The idea of a "yield only" system (so no bonus xp, land discovery, free upgrade or free tech) seems to be the most simple and easy to understand way to refine the system.

 

[4CV]

The Ancient Ruins system, I'm less enthusiastic. I sincerely hope there will be a rework for the bonuses it gives so that the variance it allows isn't excessive. The idea of a "yield only" system (so no bonus xp, land discovery, free upgrade or free tech) seems to be the most simple and easy to understand way to refine the system.

I am not sure what "refine" means in this context. Taking away random elements won't make the game better or more interesting. Because, everyone who don't like ruins can disable them (which I do in most of my games,btw). But for those who like the system "as is" the option should remain.
Edit: Or, if technically possible, three options (zero/medium/full)

 

[Tekamthi]

i like it, though wouldn't mind if it were improved to address various concerns listed in thread here

that said i'd be happier with it staying as is than being removed entirely

 

[JamesNinelives]

The Ancient Ruins system, I'm less enthusiastic. I sincerely hope there will be a rework for the bonuses it gives so that the variance it allows isn't excessive. The idea of a "yield only" system (so no bonus xp, land discovery, free upgrade or free tech) seems to be the most simple and easy to understand way to refine the system.

That's fair. I'm not opposed to a rework (I support nerfing the 'faith' reward and buffing or removing the 'unit xp' reward). Just that I like a degree of randomness in the game, and the chance to withdraw promotion seems fine to me.

 

[Bruhmoment]

I was thinking the lower the chance - the MORE guaranteed chances to get a withdraw. for example - 20% chance to withdraw means you get 2-4 free withdraws (think guaranteed barb wins from civ 4)
and if it's a higher one - less withdraws, around 1-2. Probably sounds better in my head, but oh well

 

[Recursive]

So looking at the code it seems like it reduces the odds by 20% for each move the attacker has above 2, and also by 20% if any of the three hexes behind the withdrawing unit (in front of the attacking unit) are occupied.

Not sure if it's multiplicative or additive with the base withdrawal chance.

 

[JamesNinelives]

So looking at the code it seems like it reduces the odds by 20% for each move the attacker has above 2, and also by 20% if any of the three hexes behind the withdrawing unit (in front of the attacking unit) are occupied.

Not sure if it's multiplicative or additive with the base withdrawal chance.

I didn't know that!

 

[Recursive]

So looking at the code it seems like it reduces the odds by 20% for each move the attacker has above 2, and also by 20% if any of the three hexes behind the withdrawing unit (in front of the attacking unit) are occupied.

Not sure if it's multiplicative or additive with the base withdrawal chance.

It's additive. So chance = base chance, -20% for each of the three occupied/blocked plots behind the withdrawing unit (0% chance if all three plots are occupied/blocked), -20% for each move the attacker has above 2.

 

[azum4roll]

Oh cool, so there IS a way other than blocking all spots to guarantee no withdraw.

 

[Rekk]

Funnily enough, this means a Destroyer with no units behind it has a 20% chance to withdraw when attacked by another Destroyer, 0% if one other unit is behind it.

Kind of want to check if the BNW DLL has the same interaction with move speed. Would be funny to find out that it does and that BMW destroyers have a 0% chance to withdraw at all times with the promotion.

 

[Rekk]

Perhaps it should be moves remaining instead of max moves?

 

[JamesNinelives]

Perhaps it should be moves remaining instead of max moves?

I assumed that it was moves remaining. Clarification welcome!

 

[Rekk]

I assumed that it was moves remaining. Clarification welcome!

It's max moves.