Shattered retreat: how historically accurate it is?

[Captain Butthurt]

So I was looking forward to getting back into this game after quite some time, and when I finally launched it and created a new game, I was greeted with a huge list of rules, allowing me to customize my experience. I love it!

So I'm aiming to have as historically accurate playthrough as it is possible, and while absolute majority of rules are self-explanatory and are easy to pick, I'm struggling with Shattered Retreat rule.

I remember the time it was implemented, and some serious push back from player base it received - for obvious reasons, as the ability to chase finish off your retreating opponent in the next region makes sense logically and makes the game quite a lot easier.

But it makes me wonder - how historically accurate this mechanic is? Are there a lot of recorded instances when defeated armies were able to evade engagement, retreat, regroup and have a fighting chance against the attacker?

I can see why it was implemented balance-wise, but in single player games against AI it doesn't make a lot of difference - even if you're not catching beaten army in the next province, nothing really stops you from chasing it down for 2-3 provinces and inflict either a killing blow, or have a easy win at the very least.

And even in busy MP games with a lot of players and possible cooperation this feature seems such a niche and highly situational that I doubt it's much use for the beaten army. It just prolongs the inevitable.

So, what do you think? Which rule regarding shattered retreat do you prefer?

[kazaddum]

Originally posted by Captain Butthurt:

So I was looking forward to getting back into this game after quite some time, and when I finally launched it and created a new game, I was greeted with a huge list of rules, allowing me to customize my experience. I love it!

So I'm aiming to have as historically accurate playthrough as it is possible, and while absolute majority of rules are self-explanatory and are easy to pick, I'm struggling with Shattered Retreat rule.

I remember the time it was implemented, and some serious push back from player base it received - for obvious reasons, as the ability to chase finish off your retreating opponent in the next region makes sense logically and makes the game quite a lot easier.

But it makes me wonder - how historically accurate this mechanic is? Are there a lot of recorded instances when defeated armies were able to evade engagement, retreat, regroup and have a fighting chance against the attacker?

I can see why it was implemented balance-wise, but in single player games against AI it doesn't make a lot of difference - even if you're not catching beaten army in the next province, nothing really stops you from chasing it down for 2-3 provinces and inflict either a killing blow, or have a easy win at the very least.

And even in busy MP games with a lot of players and possible cooperation this feature seems such a niche and highly situational that I doubt it's much use for the beaten army. It just prolongs the inevitable.

So, what do you think? Which rule regarding shattered retreat do you prefer?

Historically, it's really rare for defeated armies to get destroyed. However the reorganization ingame is too fast, this is balanced out by the fact that one can magically hunt down defeated armies though enemy territory, tho.

[VeronicaCardican]

I understand the feature to make life harder for the army on retteat and not for the army on pursuit.

Without shattered retreat, you need more time to pull your army together into a doomstack when a number of troops are still running about the countryside panicked. It adds additional downtime before a defeated army is ready for battle again.

I usually play with shattered retreat even though it‘s usually a nuisance.

[Valentine Michael Smith]

it was pretty rare for wars to be decided by a single battle so allowing the loser to regroup makes a lot more sense, to me at least.