Retreat - tweak suggestion

[davidss]

Hi,
I think the Retreat function of TLD is important for game play, but it does need the force morale option checked in game options ... in order for Retreat to work. (I realize Retreat needs to be activated in Campaign text also).

Some players (myself included) prefer to not play with "force morale" activated (in game options) due to the battle ending too quickly because or force morale failure. The result is: the battle resumes on the same map, but with the side that lost having fewer VL's.
Although this is logical ... it may prolong the inevitable outcome of the battle, and in doing so ... make the game seem boring and/or frustrating.

My suggestion is.
Tweak the force morale differential values ... so that:
1. it is more difficult for a battle to end because of morale failure
2. any morale failure causes a BG to retreat (which would result in the BG retreating to a friendly map or being disbanded, if without access to a friendly map).

The outcome of these tweaks would be:
a. the player that forces an opponent's morale to fail ... gains control of the map more quickly
b. More players may use the force morale and Retreat options. This may make for better engagement possibilities, since ... when the retreating BG survives ... and if the winner of the battle continues to attack the retreated BG on the next map ... the attacker will have only a small deployment zone, giving the defender somewhat of an advantage.

[Andrew Williams]

currently the force morale failure resuls in one of the below depending on circumstances

Draw and map control stays the same  (Both sides morale fails)

Depending on FM differential between the two sides.
1 VL loss
2 VL Loss
3 VL loss

If any of these means loss of all VL's then the BG exits the map.

The variations and nuances of this system can create many and varied tactical challenges for the players.... more so than a simple disbandment of effected BG.

[davidss]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

Depending on FM differential between the two sides.
1 VL loss
2 VL Loss
3 VL loss

If any of these means loss of all VL's then the BG exits the map.

Thanks for the info Andrew

Questions:
1.Is it just one side dropping below a certain predetermined threshold that triggers a battle to end, due to morale failure ... for example: 15%?

2.If (1.) is answered "yes" ... then I presume the difference between Opponents' morale percentages (at time of battle ending morale failure) is what determines the amount of VL's that are lost ... correct?

Further ...
The point I was trying to make is ... I want to make better use of the Retreat feature. And tweaking the morale failure values to produce more dramatic battlefield results ... may promote more players to use the morale force feature.

A simple way would be:

2 VL loss
3 VL Loss
4 VL loss

[Andrew Williams]

As it is now in LSa the very weak BO battle Groups suffer hugely any way... most maps are won in 1 turn, rarely stretching to two.


To penalise them even more does not seem right to me.


I can't remember what the % is but your explanation seems correct.

[davidss]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

As it is now in LSa the very weak BO battle Groups suffer hugely any way... most maps are won in 1 turn, rarely stretching to two.


To penalise them even more does not seem right to me.


I can't remember what the % is but your explanation seems correct.

I'm referring to TLD [:)]
Anyway, it's just an idea ... not a bug or problem.
During a public campaign, played with force morale on ... there were many times when morale failed. Some battles were revisited two or more times, due to just one or two VL losses. This is when I realized why players don't like playing with force morale on. At the time of this public campaign ... the Retreat option wasn't working, but now that it is ... it would be interesting to use it without the annoyance of repeating battles due to small force morale penalties.

I would still like to see loss of VL's due to morale failure ... just with more dramatic consequences.
So I'll drop my original idea of having any morale failure cause loss of map ... (seen in 2. of first post)

as mentioned above ... an easy way to accomplish this would be:

2 VL loss
3 VL Loss
4 VL loss

This idea fits into a larger thought of playing a TLD campaign:
I have disabled RECYCLE for BG's and enabled RETREAT. If force morale is "ON" in game options ... then a player will have a BG retreat when morale failure conditions are right and when a friendly map is available. If no friendly map is available ... the BG is lost (no recycle). This puts more strategy/tension into play, since players may try harder to push a BG off a map, and also cut supply lines with more specific intent. The penalty for loss of map (or specific depth of morale failure) without being in supply ... would be similar to being surrounded and surrender all units.
I just figured having tougher force morale conditions (that trigger retreat) would make this idea work better.

[Andrew Williams]

This is meant to make you think... instead of just laying waste to the enemy sprites use your noggin.

[davidss]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

This is meant to make you think... instead of just laying waste to the enemy sprites use your noggin.

The problem is ... you can have a weak opponent BG blocking access to the other half of the map ... and then when moving in to clear them ... it triggers a morale failure, which in turn just pushes the weak BG a little further back in the map (due to loss of one or two VL's). Now this map needs to be replayed once or twice more, in order to get this weak BG off the map. Sometimes the defender would just disband the BG during the move turn ... so the battle wouldn't have to be played again. Most players want to have more decisive outcomes of battles ... therefore leaving force morale "off" ... in order to let the units on the ground get more results than just minor morale failure penalties.

[Andrew Williams]

And that is the Challenge.

How do you get to move forward given the circumstance you are in.

Movement, feint, shifting of weight, redirection of effort all come into play.

If you oppenent is frustrating you, then he is winning.

[Andrew Williams]

Most players want to have more decisive outcomes of battles ... therefore leaving force morale "off"

Simply put... most people are stupid.

[davidss]

If a commander knows where an enemy force is ... and he knows they are weaker ... he will force the issue and attack them with everything he has, while the advantage is his.
Running units around to capture unoccupied VL's ... so as not to cause an enemy to break morale too soon, is not seen in normal combat situations ... and is therefore falsely causing a CC player to act this way in order to comply with unrealistic parameters produced by too low of penalties from morale failure.

[davidss]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

If you oppenent is frustrating you, then he is winning.

Is this the reason you have reduced this conversation to the level seen below [:-]
[:D]

quote:

Simply put... most people are stupid.

[davidss]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

If you oppenent is frustrating you, then he is winning.

The point being made was ... it was frustrating for both players

[Andrew Williams]

unrealistic parameters

you mean like ... take time out to take turns to move?

or not have control of where BG's enter the map?

or 500 other things in CC?

[davidss]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

unrealistic parameters

you mean like ... take time out to take turns to move?

or not have control of where BG's enter the map?

or 500 other things in CC?

hahaha ...

how about a little hug and call it a night

or see you at GameRanger in 5 min ...
just jokin
... gotta get some sleep
Have a good day

[Andrew Williams]

cheers    (where's the hug smiley?)



Edit: I've still got the screenshot from our last meeting [X(]

[davidss]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

cheers    (where's the hug smiley?)



Edit: I've still got the screenshot from our last meeting [X(]

couldn't find one ... so a kiss will have to do ... or maybe just a slap with a fish

[davidss]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

Edit: I've still got the screenshot from our last meeting [X(]

[X(] ... yikes, I promise to be nice now ... and will always play with force morale "on".
You were right all along ... what was I thinking

[Andrew Williams]

That's better... now go to bed!

[davidss]

But seriously ... now that retreat works in TLD, I will always try to use morale "on" ... with or without any tweaks ... as long as the opponent agrees.
I did a bunch of testing using morale/retreat last night, and am convinced its worth using.

[Andrew Williams]

Yeh.. I have always played with morale on... working a treat in LSA GC I ham playing right now.