Combat withdraw

[crazyewok]

I go by the principle of each in game combat unit representing a battalion sized unit.

I’m not sure if it been discussed but I think there should be a greater chance of withdrawal than total destruction of a unit in most cases excluding certain circumstances.

In history is very rare whole units are destroyed instead defeated armies normally retreat and regroup ect.

On the whole I think a defeated unit as long as its not surrounded or in hostile terrain should as a norm just withdraw.

Of course total destruction should be most likely or guaranteed in these conditions...

Its surrounded

Its in a hostile environment

It deep in enemy territory

Its a infantry caught out in the open by cavalry

Its artillery (In lost battle artillery is normally abandoned)

Its already been defeated or suffered heavy loses in previous turn.

It caught miles from any road or path.

In other conditions withdrawal should happen in a good 80-99% of cases (the 1-20% taking into account idiot officers and human error) depending on conditions like

Is there roads to retreat down.

Unit experience

Wood or hills to run into.

If its in friendly territory

Any nearby enemy Calvary


But apart from these conditions it should be most likely that a army withdraws. This would add a lot more strategy than just one battle and bang a whole unit dead that it gone, or worse losing a high levelled up unit.

 

[Taxman66]

Maybe, but this isn't a tactical single combat/engagement recreation. Each turn is years long.

 

[crazyewok]

But under that impression then it silly boats take hundred of years to move

I just dont see why not add abit more depth to combat. And anyway if people like suppificial easy combat just make it a option like everything else.

 

[Vokarya]

Maybe, but this isn't a tactical single combat/engagement recreation. Each turn is years long.

I agree. This may be "realistic" but I think it would make for awful gameplay.

At this point, I am pretty much opposed to ANY mechanic that allows both sides to walk away from a battle. There are two main reasons why:

• There are already too many units on the map.
• There isn't nearly enough investment in each unit.

The game mechanics as they currently stand support larger armies much more than smaller ones. Once a unit is built, it may cost a small amount in maintenance, but nothing else. So the urge is there to build lots more units. As a consequence of this, the total amount of time that you can spend on each unit has to be very low or the game becomes a slog -- and then the game is no longer worth playing. If the map had far fewer units at a time, then withdrawal mechanics would be worth looking into. As it is, I don't think they are.

I think this is why I'm going to be very, very skeptical of the proposed affliction mechanics. I don't think that it's going to be worth the investment in mental effort to be worthwhile.

This is not a pure combat game, and we shouldn't be making it one. Personally, I find combat to be pretty annoying sometimes. I'll give an example -- the AI loves to send individual Bandit Riders into my territory. Probably as scouts, but I can't say for sure. What generally happens is that I use a garrison unit (typically a Spear or Pike) to attack the Rider, which withdraws, and then a second garrison unit finishes it off. Then I have to wait for the next turn to move the garrison units back into their city. All I've done is had to use 4 mouse clicks to waste 1 enemy unit when there is pretty much NO chance of any negative consequences to me.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

But under that impression then it silly boats take hundred of years to move

They do! This has been a problem in Civ since Civ I. For game balance even modern boats need to take years to cross the Atlantic.

 

[crazyewok]

Im going to have to disagree. I do put investmnet into certain units and use the promotion trees.

Ok its not a combat simulater but the mechanics are there to add a more realstic option. Im just not a fan of easly total destruction and in depth tactical thinking.
I know some people are not, as I said if there was support for this the add it as A OPTION.

 

[crazyewok]

They do! This has been a problem in Civ since Civ I. For game balance even modern boats need to take years to cross the Atlantic.

Thats kinda my point. Game turns and years mean nothing.

 

[Thunderbrd]

All I'll say to this is to request that you review this idea once the combat mod is fully in effect and see what you think.

 

[Nakkimunakas]

AI High flanking units seem to attack based on their survival rate. For example AI light cavalry with high flanking keeps attacking even with 0.5 / 8 health making no damage until it dies. Also very high flanking (90%) units that I would like to keep alive often tend to defend first in a stack until they withdraw and get killed outside the stack.

So I think there should be some adjusting to how AI and defending stacks evaluate flanking.

 

[Taxman66]

In V26 I kept running into cases where a powerful mounted unit with high flanking called off an attack against a much weaker opponent, even before the mounted unit was hurt. It's very frustrating to see an 8 str mounted UU break off an attack versus a 2 str animal.

 

[JosEPh_II]

In V26 I kept running into cases where a powerful mounted unit with high flanking called off an attack against a much weaker opponent, even before the mounted unit was hurt. It's very frustrating to see an 8 str mounted UU break off an attack versus a 2 str animal.

Camel riders and Camel archer were Very bad about this behaviour. I only build them now for scouting and if I see AI Elephants.

JosEPh

 

[Taxman66]

I only built the camel units to patrol deserts and attack those desert barbarian cities when they popped up; and yes they did that so much that I just stopped putting flanking promos on them.

However, I've also seen it happen with various horse mounted units as well. Again particularly when given (or starting with) flanking promos.

Flanking promos are just too darn quick on deciding to retreat/call off attacks.

 

[Thunderbrd]

In V26 I kept running into cases where a powerful mounted unit with high flanking called off an attack against a much weaker opponent, even before the mounted unit was hurt. It's very frustrating to see an 8 str mounted UU break off an attack versus a 2 str animal.

Camel riders and Camel archer were Very bad about this behaviour. I only build them now for scouting and if I see AI Elephants.

JosEPh

I only built the camel units to patrol deserts and attack those desert barbarian cities when they popped up; and yes they did that so much that I just stopped putting flanking promos on them.

However, I've also seen it happen with various horse mounted units as well. Again particularly when given (or starting with) flanking promos.

Flanking promos are just too darn quick on deciding to retreat/call off attacks.

What you're experiencing is a Combat Limit definition. Cobras and Camel Archers I'm aware of having these but I don't know if any other units possess the 'ability'. This is the same function as a siege weapon has that makes it automatically withdraw once its enemy has taken damage up to a particular XML defined percentage.

It's a double edged sword and mostly bad. If you are losing, there's no limit to how much YOUR unit can lose and that allows for potential destruction of course but if you WIN it only allows you to win so far and then breaks off the combat.

The combat mod introduces an improved way to do this and beckons these tags to go back to purely siege weapon use. Early Withdraw establishes that once your unit has lost down to a % amount equal to the unit's Early Withdraw value, then your unit will begin attempting withdrawal, repeating the attempt each round until either successful or the battle is completed with one or the other unit defeated.

This makes it completely possible for a unit to be programmed to begin trying get out early and take less risk while at the same time allowing said unit to carry out the full combat without having any limit to how much damage it was able to deliver to its opponent.

Pursuit also now interacts with the Combat Limitation ability making it possible for the defender to lock in the Combat Limited attacker, presumably so it can happily destroy that attacker but sometimes that can be a bad thing for the defender if the normally limited attacker is actually stronger than the Pursuing Defender. Dogs just have a hard time showing restraint in a fight when it gets down and dirty!

 

[Vokarya]

Im going to have to disagree. I do put investmnet into certain units and use the promotion trees.

Ok its not a combat simulater but the mechanics are there to add a more realstic option. Im just not a fan of easly total destruction and in depth tactical thinking.
I know some people are not, as I said if there was support for this the add it as A OPTION.

That doesn't make it a GOOD option. We could have an option where Aggressive leaders get units with +100 XP to start and it would totally unbalance the game. I, personally, would never play with such an option turned on and probably wouldn't trust a game with it included.

 

[crazyewok]

That doesn't make it a GOOD option. We could have an option where Aggressive leaders get units with +100 XP to start and it would totally unbalance the game. I, personally, would never play with such an option turned on and probably wouldn't trust a game with it included.

Well that your opinion not MINE I want a game where units arent expendale and which has deep tactical content. If you dont like it DONT play it. Dont presume to tell me how to play my game and what options I should have and I wont presume to tell you how to set up and play yours.