RETREAT!!!!!!

[heroldje]

I would just like to throw out another of a million requests: It would be super if at some point the option could be added for the defender to not dispute a territory when attacked. I think this is 100% realistic, and the more I play the more I question its exclusion.

I would be okay with some loss to take place, but as is, my forces, no matter how hopelessly outnumbered, always seem to fight to the last man.

[Doc o War]

Good question Heroldje- why not a retreat option- with some rearguard? Like the Battle of Chantilly after 2nd Bull Run-- many examples in that war

[JAMiAM]

Being able to retreat in good order is a function of the leader's defense rating. IMO, this aspect of the game doesn't need changing.

[heroldje]

...........are you serious?
 
lets say i have fully scouted 120,000 union troops facing me in Washington.  Opposing them I have 6,000 men in manassas.  Now, when those 120,000 troops advance to manassas, are you telling me that the "ability" of those 6,000 men to not fight those 120,000 men to the death is a function of the leaders defense rating????  They wouldn't have the ability to say... hey... thats a huge army crossing the potomac... i think we better fall back to the main lines in gordonsville?  That seems so incredibly basic I'm finding it hard to understand how you disagree.
 

[heroldje]

just to clarify, i'm not talking about retreating once battle has commenced... i'm talking about retreating when the unit enters your territory, but before battle commences.

[O.O. Howard]

I agree with this wish.
 
Everyone all over the countryside has a chance of activation EXCEPT the troops in an attacked province. Why cant THEY react and slip away before the fight?
 
I will guess one reason: If we allow the defender to retreat before combat, then we must also allow the attacker a chance to react to that! and then the defender reacts again. etc.
 
Its complicated and probably not doable, but i still think its a good idea.

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: heroldje

...........are you serious?

lets say i have fully scouted 120,000 union troops facing me in Washington.  Opposing them I have 6,000 men in manassas.  Now, when those 120,000 troops advance to manassas, are you telling me that the "ability" of those 6,000 men to not fight those 120,000 men to the death is a function of the leaders defense rating????  They wouldn't have the ability to say... hey... thats a huge army crossing the potomac... i think we better fall back to the main lines in gordonsville?  That seems so incredibly basic I'm finding it hard to understand how you disagree.

I agree with James on this one, the leader's defensive rating seems to make a big difference. If the rating is decent there's usually a small skirmish and the defenders fall back, sometimes with the attacker taking more casualties (or sniping a leader like McCulloch [:D] ).

There's a great Napoleonic battle in the Peninsula where Craufurd's Light Division held off French troops six times their number in a fighting withdrawl over the river Coa. The "firey" Marshal Ney incessantly kept trying to cross the bridge and the corpses piled up on the bridge.

I like this one the way it currently is.

[heroldje]

So in a one month span, a force has absolutely no hope of retreating before they are swarmed by overwhelming numbers?  Massive troops can 'react' into the region, but they can't react out? 
 
Your example shows how one could defend if he chose to.  I'm refering to a situation where they chose not to.

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: heroldje

So in a one month span, a force has absolutely no hope of retreating before they are swarmed by overwhelming numbers?

That's not what I'm saying. They have the chance they have, and that chance is dependent upon the leader's stats, his units stats, the defending terrain, the opposing force's sundry stats, and luck. Much like they would have in real life if they were beset upon by an attack. Some may get out alive, some of the time, and sometimes they will be hunted down to a man. I've had many a small rearguard, or screening force, escape with some 50% or more of its force intact, when it is attacked by overwhelming force. Occasionally, they have all been damaged, or destroyed.

ORIGINAL: heroldje
Massive troops can 'react' into the region, but they can't react out?

They can react out, if they are not pinned. In the circumstances that you're complaining about, however, that is generally not the case.

ORIGINAL: heroldje
I'm refering to a situation where they chose not to.

The problem is that given the time scale of the game, and its turn-based nature, some abstraction is obviously involved. If you want to not defend, then don't defend. However, once you've made the commitment to "defend" a region, in other words, to be in it, then you have to accept the consequences of being involved in its defense, to the point where your forces are assumed to give some level of combat to the intruding force, whatever it is. Many an engagement began small, as a meeting engagement, and it wasn't until later, when it was too late to extricate their forces, that the commanders realized just how much of the proverbial tiger they had grabbed by the tail.

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: heroldje

So in a one month span, a force has absolutely no hope of retreating before they are swarmed by overwhelming numbers?  Massive troops can 'react' into the region, but they can't react out? 

Your example shows how one could defend if he chose to.  I'm refering to a situation where they chose not to.

Actually, if you're talking about my example, Wellington was not happy at all that Craufurd had engaged the French at the Coa. If that battle was part of a game or simulation, the Wellington player would have chose not to engage there . Another example might Heth engaging Buford at Gettysburg, Lee did not choose for that to happen (even though they were advancing and not defending, but still).

In the month span the force does actually retreat if swarmed by overwhelming numbers, it's just how well they retreat is decided by the leader's defensive rating, which is a pretty nice way of doing it imo.

[heroldje]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: heroldje

I guess we will have to agree to disagree