Run away!!

[MrFun]

To Sabre and others - please no flaming other people in here just because you disagree.

I agree with others that if one does not like the Retreat feature, then they should simply not use it and stop complaining. BUT NO FLAMING others.

[MarkG]

Sabre,

let's keep this civil, ok?
i would not like to do something that i would not like to do


wheathin,

you're dreaming...

[Stratesford]

Retreat is cool with me, and you do take some damage most of the time.

testing christmas faces

:P

[Ironwolf]

Metamorph,

Historically when intelligence cannot give a complete picture of the enemy situation, the military has long used reconnaissance by fire and probing in force as a method to determine the enemy's strength. As an infantry officer, we trained on the conduct of reconnaissance in strength. You don't sacrifice units unnecessarily. To me, the retreat option makes combat more realistic. No commander would allow his units to fight to the death against a superior force. He would withdraw to a defensive position and await reinforcements.

[Sabre2th]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 12-04-2000 11:21 AM Sabre, let's keep this civil, ok?

Sorry Mark. I didn't mean it like that, I just meant that it was kind of pointless to keep throwing the same two points of view back and forth.

[MarkG]

Ironwolf, I believe Meta has a problem with the implementation of the idea, not the idea itself...

Sabre, thanks...
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited December 05, 2000).]

[Metamorph]

Yes, precisely. (Holy crap; MarkG and I agree? Call Guiness. )

Retreating is an interesting concept. I can envision its potential applicability in a civlike environment. Here's how *I* would implement retreating in CtP2:

- Retreat is a configurable option on the game creation screen. Either retreating is allowed; or it is disallowed.
- Both the attacker AND the defender have the capacity to retreat.
- Combat PAUSES round to round, permitting either player to elect to retreat whenever he or she wishes.
- If the attacker retreats, the attacking stack is left in the square from which it originated; its move for that turn is OVER. No bombarding; no attacking again; no moving away; no fortifying. OVER.
- If the defender retreats, the defending units are moved to available, adjacent squares of the defender's choice utilizing their next turn's movement points (if available). If the units have no more remaining "borrowed movement", then they cannot retreat.
- The AI knows how to make use of retreating, either on the attack or on defense.
- Units which retreat will not heal for that turn.
- Units which retreat cannot harvest slaves.
- Units which retreat cannot gain veteran status.
- When a stack retreats, the opposing stack gets one free round of normal combat, PLUS one round of missile volley (i.e., the exact inverse of the methodology used when engaging in the first place).

So for example: your 12 hoplites attack a city. Lo and behold, it's protected by three fortified cannons. Oops. The cannons immediately fire. You take missile damage. Now you may:
1) Immediately retreat. As you're still only in missile range, the cannons fire once more, one or two hoplites explode, and the combat ends.
2) Continue fighting. You engage in melee; a round of 'normal' combat ensues. Some of your hoplites get wasted. You retreat. The enemy gets another swing at you, then gets another missile volley at you. You lose more hoplites. The combat ends.
3) Continue fighting. You engage in melee; a round of 'normal' combat ensues. Some of your hoplites get wasted. You fight some more. You lose some more hoplites. The cannons start taking damage. Your opponent (or, God forbid, the AI?) decides to retreat because it's about to lose its cannons to stinking hoplites. The cannons are all moved just outside of the city. The hoplites win. Of course, next round, the cannons are all adjacent to your new city, and still have sufficient movement left to perform a bombard...

These principles seem relatively straightforward to me. If you disagree, feel free to point out equally intuitive alternate design methodologies; I'm sure I'd have no problem with them as well.

Just common sense, folks. That's all I ask. Honest.

- Metamorph

[Paulypav]

I couldn't agree with you more, Metamorph. Your methodology makes the most sense to me. The real question know is it either patchable by Activision or can one of the resident geniuses find a way to modify this?

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

[zippyg]

Could someone expand on what ICS means/is please ?

[Ironwolf]

I agree Metamorph. That kind of system would be great to have.

[MrFun]

I remember when people used to quibble over one specific, minor feature in the game endlessly and . . .

oh wait - never mind - they still do.

Seriously though, there are a couple interesting posts in here about the Retreat feature.

[Sabre2th]

I agree with metamorph in that the retreat feature could have been better, but we have to stop at some point and realize that no game will ever be 100% perfect.

[hHydro]

Of course the game's not perfect, but you guys didn't need to jump on Meta so harshly when he pointed that out.. I still agree that while retreating is an important part of battle, it was very poorly implemented.

With luck we can get this addressed in a patch.

[zippyg]

Could someone expand on what ICS means/is please ?

this is the secomd time I've asked this.

thanks

[wheathin]

There have been dozens of discussions of ICS over the last 2 years. Try searching the Call to Power - General, Civ2, and Civ3 forums.