Run away!!

[lago]

Is this a great option, or what?!?!

No more watching a powerful army get slaughtered because the enemy city garrison was unexpectedly strong. Yeah, they'll take some damage, but at least most will survive to fight again. And given the attrition rate I have for Spies trying to discern the garrison size, it might even be cost effective.

[The diplomat]

Yeah, the "retreat" option creates an unexpected loophole. You no longer have to really worry about having enough troops to conquer a city. You can always attack and retreat right away if you see you can't win. This means that you will never lose against a city. You might not win right away but you will never lose. You will either take a city or retreat to attack again. You will take damage but your army will survive. In fact, why even bother with spies to "investigate" a city. Just attack and retreat right away. Now you know what the city has, you can move on or attack the city for real on the next turn.

And the "retreat" option was so cool. sigh.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[MarkG]

quote: You might not win right away but you will never lose

you will get some damage, even loose 1-2 units, and on the next turn the opponent will most likely bombard you causing you even more damage...

[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited November 29, 2000).]

[Dom Pedro II]

Thats true, MarkG. The Retreat order would be nice if it were more immediate. If you can hit it as soon as the screen pops up, you can probably get away with light damage depending on the odds.

But its still good though. Afterall, any defeat you can walk away from is a good defeat.

[Dominous Nemo]

I think the retreat option is a good idea. Just my opinion ;-)

[Dom Pedro II]

I'd like to hear from the person who doesn't like the concept of a retreat option.

[Dissident Aggressor]

makes the game even easier than it already is

but it does seem good. I forgot all about that and could have used that earlier. oh well.

[Slice]

It also helps when your surviving troops become veterans, or if you kill at least one enemy unit, you get a slave (with a slaver in the army of course).

Great way to build a killer stack early in the game, and also doubles as a population booster.

------------------
"The truth is always the truth, whether you believe it or not." -Todd E Scott

[Metamorph]

I think retreating is an absurdity, as well as an abuse. Aside from the aforementioned true cheeses (retreating to suck multiple slaves or gain veteran status), it's a lame way to discover the strength of the units behind enemy walls.

Another lame cheese, by the way, is testing for "enemy presence". Occasionally, especially very early in the game, the computer will leave a city completely defenseless. Of course, you have no idea whether or not the city has any defenses, right? Well, while you might not, your units do. Try to draw a movement path running parallel to the city. If the city were occupied, the ZOC exerted by the garrison will prevent you from moving along the city; if not, then the auto-movement-drawing macro will allow the path. Consequently, you can find out whether the city is occupied or whether it's simply up for grabs without a fight.

Retreating isn't permitted in multiplayer; I don't see why it should be included in single. Just because the computer cheats doesn't mean you should be able to as well, in my opinion.

- Metamorph

[MarkG]

i dont get it, since when taking advantage of a feature of the game is called "cheating"? Iin my book it's called a "strategy tip"...

[Paulypav]

In real life, armies retreat when they realize that they are overmatched. I think it is great that CTP gives us the same option. Sometimes armies attack what they think is an inferior enemy and are surprised when it is bigger. In these situations it is most prudent to run away.

To be perfectly honest, some armies fight skirmishes and run away to get their troops experience, i.e. get them veteran status. Probing enemy defenses by attacking and retreating is a millenium old strategy as well. These are strategies I had not thought to incorporate, but rather than them being cheating I think they are realistic extensions of the retreat function.

Now I just have to get the game so i can test it myself.

------------------
“The American people have now spoken, but it’s going to take a little while to determine exactly what
they said.” — President Clinton

[marc420]

I like retreat, but I'd like to see one twist added onto it. Make it random as to how quickly you retreat away from the battle. Most of the time you take the one free shot and get away. But sometimes you take two free shots, sometimes you take three free shots, and sometimes you can't get away at all.

[lago]

I guess in war it's cheating if you don't fight to the bitter end.

ANYTHING can be abused. I just think it's great that you don't have to watch an army be totally destroyed because the enemy is slightly stronger.

There's no ultimate "automatic" victory involved, either, IMO. While the first battle might tell you what the garrison strength is, and thus how much you'll need, you still have the task of building and marshalling the units it will take to win. And in the meantime, the enemy can be strengthening his defenses...adding more and better units, building Ballista Towers, etc.

Of course, you could avoid the hard targets totally and go after the easier ones...in other words, exactly like a real war. Do you attack the heavily defended vital spot, or pick off the easier but less important ones on the periphery? Decisions.

[wheathin]

Retreat sounds cool... but if you're willing to take a few extra casualties, why not just attack with only one unit as a 'probing attack' before you commit all your forces.

After upgrading my forces, I usually have many left-over phalanxes and such - just send one into the city to see what the opposition looks like. The unit is probably more valuable for its intel value than for its disband value.

[Metamorph]

In my book, Mark, if the makers of a game incorporate some idiotic flaw which is readily abusable and makes the game significantly easier, then utilizing that flaw is cheating.

When using the retreat "option" in CtP2, you can:

- Attack MULTIPLE times with the same unit and retreat immediately, resulting in multiple population losses in a city you attack;
- Attack, retreat, and leave the unit standing there, and it will still HEAL because the game doesn't consider the unit to have moved;
- Attack with one unit, retreat, and now know the exact strength and specifications of the city or stack you attacked, BEFORE moving any of your units (including the one you attacked with; it can now use its full movement rate still);
- Attack with a stack of units which has missile attacks, take the free missile volley, retreat, attack again, take the free missile volley, retreat;
- Attack with a stack of units, fight until they're on the brink of death, retreat, attack with another stack of units, fight until they're on the brink of death, retreat... Net result, you win the fight and lose NO units at all;
- Laugh at the poor AI, who never makes use of this same fascinating game "feature".

Retreating is a ridiculous add-on that doesn't belong in the classic civlike combat model. It gives ludicrous advantage to the attacker; and in the case of CtP2, was poorly implemented and permits all sort of cheesy, lame tactics.

A game feature which is poorly or incorrectly designed is a flaw. Abusing a game flaw is cheating. Or don't you think there's a reason why retreating isn't permitted in multiplayer? Strategy tip my ass.

- Metamorph