Retreating

[funkmonster7]

Is there absolutely no penalty from retreating in battle, even if you're the defender?

I read somewhere that if you're the attacker, you can retreat without any penalty, but as a defender you have some penalty or something. It is really confusing, and I've done some Google searches on this but somehow the posts (on reddit etc) seem to assume I already know how it works.

So, how does it work exactly?

Retreat as attacker: I can retreat anytime, no morale penalty, ammo replenish if recommitting to battle

Retreat as defender: I cannot retreat anytime as I have to get to the red zone, no morale penalty, ammo replenish if recommitting to battle

Is that all or are there other things I missed?

[kristianjakob]

Originally posted by funkmonster7:

Is there absolutely no penalty from retreating in battle, even if you're the defender?

I read somewhere that if you're the attacker, you can retreat without any penalty, but as a defender you have some penalty or something. It is really confusing, and I've done some Google searches on this but somehow the posts (on reddit etc) seem to assume I already know how it works.

So, how does it work exactly?

Retreat as attacker: I can retreat anytime, no morale penalty, ammo replenish if recommitting to battle

Retreat as defender: I cannot retreat anytime as I have to get to the red zone, no morale penalty, ammo replenish if recommitting to battle

Is that all or are there other things I missed?

Yes, you are missing the most important penalty.

Doing it defeats the purpose of actually playing the game.

[Coach]

Mhmm I agree that it doesnt make a lot of sense.. In history, many times when attackers took the initiative to launch an assault and were grinded down, then decided to retreat, the defenders would then change tactics and chase down the retreating attacker.
I guess that was the devs choice.

[LKAI]

When you retreat you get the disorganised penalty? I'm not sure if this just effects party speed, or morale and fighting skill in battle.

[BurningFalcon]

I think this is a major oversight in this game.

I'm currently roaming the map alone, from tournament to tournament, increasing battle skills. Occasionly fighting a handful bandits.

But when you get attacked by a group of bandits that far outnumber you? Like I just have right now? 16:1 - You can reach the red area, to leave the fight, and then? Then you can either attack or surrender. Why? I don't "have enough men" to try to get away.

Doesn't matter that I bought myself a Tier4 Warhorse with my winnings that is way faster than the horses the two mounted archers have. Definitely stronger than the 14 horse-less bandits.
But I simply can't surrender, because I don#t have any "fodder" to leave behind.

Now, why would I even want to surrender, I probably can take them on, they're just bandits (mountain bandits / highwaymen to be exact) - Well, I maybe could. Would take time, but it might manage it. My problem however? The fight is in a canyon. That's in my opinion the most disadvantageous battlefield I could have right now, especially because I don't have any ranged weapon at hand right now.

I should be able to get away... I'm "literally" getting away from them within seconds on the battlemap. (Also, if you get away through the red barrier once, you can attack again, but if you get through it twice, you can't attack anymore, only surrender or "try to get away", again, with the latter only possible if you have troops to leave behind)

[kristianjakob]

Originally posted by BurningFalcon:

I think this is a major oversight in this game.

I'm currently roaming the map alone, from tournament to tournament, increasing battle skills. Occasionly fighting a handful bandits.

But when you get attacked by a group of bandits that far outnumber you? Like I just have right now? 16:1 - You can reach the red area, to leave the fight, and then? Then you can either attack or surrender. Why? I don't "have enough men" to try to get away.

Doesn't matter that I bought myself a Tier4 Warhorse with my winnings that is way faster than the horses the two mounted archers have. Definitely stronger than the 14 horse-less bandits.
But I simply can't surrender, because I don#t have any "fodder" to leave behind.

Now, why would I even want to surrender, I probably can take them on, they're just bandits (mountain bandits / highwaymen to be exact) - Well, I maybe could. Would take time, but it might manage it. My problem however? The fight is in a canyon. That's in my opinion the most disadvantageous battlefield I could have right now, especially because I don't have any ranged weapon at hand right now.

I should be able to get away... I'm "literally" getting away from them within seconds on the battlemap. (Also, if you get away through the red barrier once, you can attack again, but if you get through it twice, you can't attack anymore, only surrender or "try to get away", again, with the latter only possible if you have troops to leave behind)

It is not an oversight. You got caught on the overland map. Even if you could escape you would probably just be caught again. So, unless you want to forbid the AI from ever attacking the player...it is what it is.

[BurningFalcon]

Originally posted by kristianjakob:

Originally posted by BurningFalcon:

I think this is a major oversight in this game.

I'm currently roaming the map alone, from tournament to tournament, increasing battle skills. Occasionly fighting a handful bandits.

But when you get attacked by a group of bandits that far outnumber you? Like I just have right now? 16:1 - You can reach the red area, to leave the fight, and then? Then you can either attack or surrender. Why? I don't "have enough men" to try to get away.

Doesn't matter that I bought myself a Tier4 Warhorse with my winnings that is way faster than the horses the two mounted archers have. Definitely stronger than the 14 horse-less bandits.
But I simply can't surrender, because I don#t have any "fodder" to leave behind.

Now, why would I even want to surrender, I probably can take them on, they're just bandits (mountain bandits / highwaymen to be exact) - Well, I maybe could. Would take time, but it might manage it. My problem however? The fight is in a canyon. That's in my opinion the most disadvantageous battlefield I could have right now, especially because I don't have any ranged weapon at hand right now.

I should be able to get away... I'm "literally" getting away from them within seconds on the battlemap. (Also, if you get away through the red barrier once, you can attack again, but if you get through it twice, you can't attack anymore, only surrender or "try to get away", again, with the latter only possible if you have troops to leave behind)

It is not an oversight. You got caught on the overland map. Even if you could escape you would probably just be caught again. So, unless you want to forbid the AI from ever attacking the player...it is what it is.

I didn't "get cought" they came from the direction I was heading to.

As for the AI attacking or not attacking. 1-2 years ago, when I played a lot, I had AI playing cat and mouse with each other and me. The ran to me, I ran to them, they ran away. Then the other AI party tried to move to my fief, I changed direction, runaway-army followed. Half the wars I had midgame, were just running around because every army was too afraid to actually fight. Hell, I even defended cities alone because allies armies were too afraid to attack the attacking army from behind while I was defending....

So, no, I don't forbid the AI to attack the player, but I want to have a reasonably chance for... tactical retreat, and a lone ride has an IMMENSE chance to do so. Just not in this game.

[Action Man]

Well...you did get caught. That's why you're stuck in battle.

I get wanting a retreat, but if the game did allow this, you could (pretty easily) escape from just about any battle ever. When you're a small fish, you need to be paying attention and ready to change course.

[BigusDicus]

Originally posted by Coach:

Mhmm I agree that it doesnt make a lot of sense.. In history, many times when attackers took the initiative to launch an assault and were grinded down, then decided to retreat, the defenders would then change tactics and chase down the retreating attacker.
I guess that was the devs choice.

No you are wrong. it does make alot of sense. Because if the enemy wanted to ''change tactics'' and go on the counter attack, this was only possible if they could catch you ergo they had some cav, and this would be translated as them both firstly running down retreating people in the battle and then them chasing you down on the overland map which can both be done in the game. To add further forced post battle casualties to retreating attackers would be the real life equivalent of enemy soldiers having heart attacks after successfully retreating.

It was a common tactic to attack larger armies with smaller forces with the main goal of retreating quickly with zero intention of destroying the enemy army. It's called harassment.
Defenders don't have this privilege by virtue of them not having the initiative. Although they can get it, and this is done in game, again, if they have cav and can successfully catch up to the retreating enemy, both in the battle and the overland map

The current form is realistic to history. Your form is not.

[Magi]

Retreat's downside is you giving upon the loot. From my experience, I go for 600vs1800 and find tier6 legendary,masterwork items but if i choose skirmish retreat and again and again until 1:1 ratio loot becomes weaker not even 1 tier6 item or one piece. However, i recommend replenish units in mid battle, calculate the numbers and command units to leave field as they worn out and ai mid to late waves choose to direct charge, should be done in correct time. It is only applicable when you are the attacker.
Both takes same time trade-off is between loot and unit.