Page 1 of 1
Retreating Through my Attack: Neat trick, that
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 7:25 pm
by malthaussen
I understand that the developers want to give the CSA every possible break in this game, but this is getting ridiculous. I'd give almost 25 virtual cents to see a good justification for an enemy force "retreating" into the region my force is advancing from. This has happened to me several times. It seems to me, if a force is attacked and retreats, they'd run from[I][/I] the attacker, and not through[I][/I] him.
-- Mal
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:33 pm
by soloswolf
It's all about military control and zones of control. So if you want to eliminate lines of retreat, spend some time gaining control.
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:20 pm
by Jim-NC
malthaussen wrote:I understand that the developers want to give the CSA every possible break in this game, but this is getting ridiculous. I'd give almost 25 virtual cents to see a good justification for an enemy force "retreating" into the region my force is advancing from. This has happened to me several times. It seems to me, if a force is attacked and retreats, they'd run from[I][/I] the attacker, and not through[I][/I] him.
-- Mal
This has to do with the retreat parameters in the game. See the link below for a discussion on this topic:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=14746&highlight=retreat
The parameters in the game cause some weird results on occasion.
As Soloswolf states, it is about control. If you do not have the right level of control, your enemy can retreat through you.
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:06 am
by Ethan
soloswolf wrote:It's all about military control and zones of control. So if you want to eliminate lines of retreat, spend some time gaining control.
Anyway, IIRC your enemy may retreat to areas with 0% of military control, so spend some time gaining military control is useless. Am I wrong?
Greetings!
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:03 am
by soloswolf
Greetings to you, Ethan!
But, you are wrong.
It's a common tactic that I use when playing both sides. And from the wiki: "Finally, you cannot retreat from battle into completely hostile regions (i.e. less than 5% military control)."
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:36 am
by Gray_Lensman
deleted
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:13 am
by Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the retreat files are designed to prevent complete destruction of stacks in battle. This didn't happen historically, so it shouldn't happen in game. It's frustrating sometimes, but realistic.
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:25 am
by Gray_Lensman
deleted
Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:24 am
by Berge20
So what are the advantages of gaining full MC around an army then, if they can still retreat?
To set the most likely course of retreat, if you have varying levels?
Or take more rounds to retreat?
Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:52 pm
by Spharv2
malthaussen wrote:I understand that the developers want to give the CSA every possible break in this game, but this is getting ridiculous. I'd give almost 25 virtual cents to see a good justification for an enemy force "retreating" into the region my force is advancing from. This has happened to me several times. It seems to me, if a force is attacked and retreats, they'd run from[I][/I] the attacker, and not through[I][/I] him.
-- Mal
You want engine justification or "story" justification? Areas are large, just because you move into one facing one direction does not mean you're going to be attacking that direction. Lee moved North to Gettysburg, and attacked going South and East. If his lines of retreat to the South had been cut, it's quite possible that the army would retreat North, then move around in another direction to get back to friendly territory. Plenty of ways to justify an army retreating in the direction an attack came from, plus the engine justification everyone else has chimed in with.
Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:27 pm
by Franciscus
IIRC there is a retreat bug in 1.15, that was corrected in 1.16 beta.
Malthausen, which version are you playing with ?