Anyone else think its stupid that we can't control where our army retreats to?

[RedGuard]

my two roman armys are under attack by 4 parthian armies (Sassinid persia's gang of eight satraps have amazingly taken up Attila's destiny of rampaging across the steps before Attila has even come to power)

naturally I want to retreat to the city I just took (The mighty capital of the Lugians: Belz. has a nice ring to it don't you think?) which has another two of my armies stationed there and next to it. One army retreats to the city. good. the next army wanders off into the forest and is now surrounded by 4 parthian armies which of course, the ai being the cowards they are, gang up on it and seek to destroy it. Rage quit and try again and see if it happens again. of course it does, exactly the same way.

why is Varus not leading his army back to base but instead wandering off into the forest? and why does this still exist in 2015 after 15 years of total war?

and totally offtopic, but why does nearly every battle end up being fought in the exact same looking forest? the landscapes seem even more generic than rome 2 and thats saying a lot.

[SharpEyed]

my two roman armys are under attack by 4 parthian armies (Sassinid persia's gang of eight satraps have amazingly taken up Attila's destiny of rampaging across the steps before Attila has even come to power)

naturally I want to retreat to the city I just took (The mighty capital of the Lugians: Belz. has a nice ring to it don't you think?) which has another two of my armies stationed there and next to it. One army retreats to the city. good. the next army wanders off into the forest and is now surrounded by 4 parthian armies which of course, the ai being the cowards they are, gang up on it and seek to destroy it. Rage quit and try again and see if it happens again. of course it does, exactly the same way.

why is Varus not leading his army back to base but instead wandering off into the forest? and why does this still exist in 2015 after 15 years of total war?

and totally offtopic, but why does nearly every battle end up being fought in the exact same looking forest? the landscapes seem even more generic than rome 2 and thats saying a lot.

yeah I agree with this one, also ur army often retreats to other faction's territory, and tadaa here ur lovely trespass! gl with that!

[Riekopo]

I think that if you decide to retreat then you should be able to control where you retreat to. However, if you are forced to retreat because you are defeated then it should be out of your control.

[RedGuard]

I think that if you decide to retreat then you should be able to control where you retreat to. However, if you are forced to retreat because you are defeated then it should be out of your control.

I would agree with that. there should be a difference between tactically retreating and routing. but Total war treats them as the same, which is stupid imo.

[GrimmCro]

I think that if you decide to retreat then you should be able to control where you retreat to. However, if you are forced to retreat because you are defeated then it should be out of your control.

This is actually great. Frantic escape and orderly retreat are two different things and should be present as such.

I would be much more interested in option to actually chose the battlefield instead of having to wait for loading process to ends and hope for workable terrain.

Personally, I'd want to see more similarity between the campaign map and the battlefield map. Hell, I'd like to see an entire campaign map be considerably bigger in scope. Meaning, more detailed three dimensional features on the campaign map that would allow players to closely predict what the battlefield would look like. But that would require CA to completely revamp both campaign and battlefield maps. That would impede their quality time so fat chance.

As for topic of this thread I kind of disagree. The retret option would in my humble opinion just become a TW version of "Free Card out of Jail" as losing control of movement is actually only punishment for not fighting the battle.

It's a strategy game. Orderly retreat should not only be a feature, but a duh one. Knowing when to fight and when not to fight matters. Just because I can see based on units, numbers and terrain that I can't win and therefore chose not to fight doesn't mean I should be punished for it.

[veverčák]

It's a strategy game. Orderly retreat should not only be a feature, but a duh one. Knowing when to fight and when not to fight matters. Just because I can see based on units, numbers and terrain that I can't win and therefore chose not to fight doesn't mean I should be punished for it.

And because it is strategy game, turn based in campaign, you should be "punish" for your decision. You should be presented by dilemmas and their concisenesses. You do not want to fight because your enemy out position you? You should be "punish" for it by risking ending up in worse position.

[Humble Warrior]

I think that if you decide to retreat then you should be able to control where you retreat to. However, if you are forced to retreat because you are defeated then it should be out of your control.

Agreed with you and Redguard. It`s stupid that you cannot make an ordered strategic retreat - Every time it`s an insane headless chicken run away.

Can`t be a hard fix.

[RedGuard]

Humble for some reason when I see your sig I automatically hear Michael Cane saying "never" like he does in one of the batman movies. lol.

[veverčák]

I would be much more interested in option to actually chose the battlefield instead of having to wait for loading process to ends and hope for workable terrain. As for topic of this thread I kind of disagree. The retret option would in my humble opinion just become a TW version of "Free Card out of Jail" as losing control of movement is actually only punishment for not fighting the battle.

[RedGuard]

I would be much more interested in option to actually chose the battlefield instead of having to wait for loading process to ends and hope for workable terrain. As for topic of this thread I kind of disagree. The retret option would in my humble opinion just become a TW version of "Free Card out of Jail" as losing control of movement is actually only punishment for not fighting the battle.

not really sure what your saying, but they could easily remedy any natural advantage you have from retreating by making the retreater have less movement points the next turn. you effectively used your turns movement points to retreat. regardless what your saying doesn't address two armies moving in completely opposite directions when they retreat, its so effing random that its stupid. its like the ai general is telling his men just to scatter in whatever direction rather than actually retreating in a direction that will help his army fight later on.

[veverčák]

not really sure what your saying, but they could easily remedy any natural advantage you have from retreating by making the retreater have less movement points the next turn. you effectively used your turns movement points to retreat. regardless what your saying doesn't address two armies moving in completely opposite directions when they retreat, its so effing random that its stupid. its like the ai general is telling his men just to scatter in whatever direction rather than actually retreating in a direction that will help his army fight later on.

I do not think it is that stupid. Disengaging from enemy is not an easy task and sometimes you do not have any other rout to escape. I like this risk of spliting and isolating forces if I chose retreat. It makes me think before smashing the retreat button. About your solution I do not think it is good one. Armies in TW can travel give or take same distance (the only difference is general traits) and turn based nature of campaign favors those who goes last as they can react to movement of their enemies. Your solution negates this to some extent. Also you can not corner an enemy army already. It is just giving to much power to hands of player to corect its mistake IMHO.

About my first sentence: I was pointing out that you can not in fact chose battlefield to your liking. It is just generate without you knowing beforehand how it looks. I think it would be nice if you can chose from lets say three different battlefields. For example: I get uphill battle in thick forest with some buildings, which would break my battle line before my contact with enemy. It would be nice if I can vetoed this battlefield just like I can wait for better weather. I would just click on "Next battlefield" and it would generate new one. Just like weather system.

[RedGuard]

I do not think it is that stupid. Disengaging from enemy is not an easy task and sometimes you do not have any other rout to escape. I like this risk of spliting and isolating forces if I chose retreat. It makes me think before smashing the retreat button. About your solution I do not think it is good one. Armies in TW can travel give or take same distance (the only difference is general traits) and turn based nature of campaign favors those who goes last as they can react to movement of their enemies. Your solution negates this to some extent. Also you can not corner an enemy army already. It is just giving to much power to hands of player to corect its mistake IMHO.

so your saying you like the fact that the person that goes last has an advantage? how is that a good thing?

and its not just a risk, it happens everytime two armies retreat. they never go in the same direction, or at least they don't end up next to each other. and these last two games have been designed as such to where the ai does not attack two armies with two armies, it prefers 4 on 2 or 3 on 2, so it just exacerbates the problem when you cant have a orderly retreat.

not being able to control which direction even (id settle for being able to tell your general to retreat north, west,east and south rather than choosing the exact spot to where they retreat to) but when half your force goes south and the other half goes west, how the hell is that helping? it be better to just sacrifice an army(which you'd end up doing anyway in the op scenario) rather than telling them both to retreat. at least you'd slow them down some.

And because it is strategy game, turn based in campaign, you should be "punish" for your decision. You should be presented by dilemmas and their concisenesses. You do not want to fight because your enemy out position you? You should be "punish" for it by risking ending up in worse position.

but what if your a cautious commander and treds slowly through the land, not using all of your movement points in one turn. how is it strategic to retreat just the same as someone who travels all the way to his destination in one turn? being a "Strategy Game" we should have options. basically when you retreat in total war it turns into "get the out of here!" with no other reaction.

[Huberto]

Not being able to control the direction of withdrawal, providing that you cannot go through the ZOC of the enemy army, is silly.

[Zhayedan]

because then it would be like having two moves in one turn?

[RedGuard]

because then it would be like having two moves in one turn?

then what do you call what we have now? if not two moves in one turn? there is hardly any tactical advantage to retreating in the first place if you can't control what happens other than a random roll of the dice. it makes the retreat option practically useless if 90% of the time your going to be in a worse position after you retreat than if you don't.

[RexJayden]

I like the idea of being able to control where we retreat to.

[veverčák]

Look, I am not in fact against to be able direct the retreat. I am against doing this without introducing a penalty for doing so. Right now, we have penalty in form spliting our forces/ending up in worse spot then before. Adequate penalty could be some casualties during the retreat - like 5% or so. Or not being orderly retreat through enemy area of influence (the fire circle thing around armies and cities) and using movement points from your next turn.

About last man advantage: I am just pointing out on inherit mechanic of every turn based game. I do not like, neither dislike it. I am saying we should take this into account.

[RedGuard]

Look, I am not in fact against to be able direct the retreat. I am against doing this without introducing a penalty for doing so. Right now, we have penalty in form spliting our forces/ending up in worse spot then before. Adequate penalty could be some casualties during the retreat - like 5% or so. Or not being orderly retreat through enemy area of influence (the fire circle thing around armies and cities) and using movement points from your next turn.

About last man advantage: I am just pointing out on inherit mechanic of every turn based game. I do not like, neither dislike it. I am saying we should take this into account.

oh yeah there should definitely be consequences for doing this, I never argued that the retreater should get away scott-free. but the general in real life more often than not was still in control of the army when it was under orders to retreat (unless it was broken and routing of course) but right now there isn't really a difference between retreating before battle, or routing after battle. The result is the same. So really, even if heavily outnumbered, 7/10 in Total war it is better to just fight it out rather than retreat, and when you have two seperate armies moving adjacent from each other 9/10 if you retreat from a larger force, you can count on one of those armies getting wiped out.

Id even go as far as saying that a retreating army could lose a entire unit or two, which could deter those from retreating if say that unit is super experienced. often throughout history there has been entire units destroyed because they did not understand the order to retreat or even follow it. but fighting 5000 men with 1200 is worse than losing 300 men to join up with 4800.

[veverčák]

oh yeah there should definitely be consequences for doing this, I never argued that the retreater should get away scott-free. but the general in real life more often than not was still in control of the army when it was under orders to retreat (unless it was broken and routing of course) but right now there isn't really a difference between retreating before battle, or routing after battle. The result is the same. So really, even if heavily outnumbered, 7/10 in Total war it is better to just fight it out rather than retreat, and when you have two seperate armies moving adjacent from each other 9/10 if you retreat from a larger force, you can count on one of those armies getting wiped out.

Actually I disagree. If you retreat before battle you still have an army. If you lose battle you get often nothing. So it is still better to retreat and hope for best result then face the annihilation. To be honest I am more bugged by absence of cornering mechanics. For example in Victoria 2, Paradox game, army can not retreat trough province which is occupied by an enemy army. So you can outmanoeuvre the enemy and have decide the war alá battle of Sedan. You really should be able to do something like this in TW game.

[RedGuard]

Actually I disagree. If you retreat before battle you still have an army. If you lose battle you get often nothing. So it is still better to retreat and hope for best result then face the annihilation. To be honest I am more bugged by absence of cornering mechanics. For example in Victoria 2, Paradox game, army can not retreat trough province which is occupied by an enemy army. So you can outmanoeuvre the enemy and have decide the war alá battle of Sedan. You really should be able to do something like this in TW game.

but your hoping that the armies attacking you have no movement points left if you retreat before battle, but if they do the result will be the same as if you fought the battle and were routed. so the results are the same, because they'll force you to fight anyway and your likely lose if your outnumbered 4 to 1 (especially since armies retreat in random directions with no sense of the land, making it much more likely for that army to be isolated and destroyed)