Is there any way to retreat/disengage from battle at all? I've often found myself in a spot where I'd prefer to turn and run and live to fight another day when I see the odds are stacked against me. But it seems that you are stuck to stay for a slow (or fast) death no matter what. Especially at sea... what's the point of having fast destroyers, if they can't escape from a battleship? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks
Dis-engaging from battle
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
not yet but there has been people asking of one. there is no way to retreat
-
this is possibly the #1 thing wrong with the game. Every battle is fight to the death.
-
No, in all air fights and in distance sea and arty battles you can disengage.
Would you like to play with your friends in a game where gold is banned?
Watch for the next season starts in September! -
of course, my mistake. Arty and navy bombard without engaging, and airplanes need to break off and refuel. The major point still stands, there does need to be a retreat option.
Sun Tzu would be appalled at the structure of this game -
I would say that a retreat option is the #1 thing that this game needs NOW. As I write this I am throwing several tank divisions into a Stalingrad-like situation.
-
So you want a retreat option to retreat your units that you are throwing into battle right now even while you know they will take a beating?
-
An option to retreat under fire makes perfect sense. It adds to the realism, it is senseless to have every single battle being fought to the death.
-
Agreed, kyrie626. For instance, if you order a division into a city, and the trip takes 6 hours. By the time you arrive, you realize that reinforcements have arrived and you have no chance of winning, but the battle has already started. You have no choice but to die.
Or, what if you are attacked, and you think your troops are more valuable than the province, or you want to fall back and regroup? Retreating is a legitimate strategy, and needs to be implemented. -
kyrie626 wrote:
An option to retreat under fire makes perfect sense. It adds to the realism, it is senseless to have every single battle being fought to the death.
It's been a while -
Cheeki_Breeki wrote:
Agreed, kyrie626. For instance, if you order a division into a city, and the trip takes 6 hours. By the time you arrive, you realize that reinforcements have arrived and you have no chance of winning, but the battle has already started. You have no choice but to die.
Or, what if you are attacked, and you think your troops are more valuable than the province, or you want to fall back and regroup? Retreating is a legitimate strategy, and needs to be implemented.
In your first eample the player is reckless. In the second he is fairly dumb I gess. He either should have pulled back earlier intead of enaging or he should not have kept his troops in a vulnerable position (near an unthrustworthy neighbour with obvious weaknesses in his army) so they wouldn't be attacked at all. -
If you knew everything that your enemy would do, there would not be any war. And what about simple hit-and-run missions? Those are not possible with no retreat option. Retreating would add a whole new level of strategy to the game. Perhaps there should be a mechanic that means you will lose some of your troops while retreating, but battles should not be a binary, win-lose, all or nothing deal.
-
Cheeki_Breeki wrote:
If you knew everything that your enemy would do, there would not be any war.
Cheeki_Breeki wrote:
And what about simple hit-and-run missions? Those are not possible with no retreat option. Retreating would add a whole new level of strategy to the game. Perhaps there should be a mechanic that means you will lose some of your troops while retreating, but battles should not be a binary, win-lose, all or nothing deal.
I looked up your stats. Have you recently started or did you play on another account before? -
Azkazan wrote:
I looked up your stats. Have you recently started or did you play on another account before?
It's been a while -
I wonder how the above conversation would have gone if people took into consideration the scale of the map and scale of the units. Can one have a "hit-n-run" maneuver on a scale of hundreds, if not thousands, of square miles; by hundreds, if not thousands, of troops?
Retreat on a similar scale could be possible if the coding could be worked out. However, retreat, in most games, gives the non-retreating side a (+) modifier to hit & damage while the retreating units get a (-) modifier (if allowed to fire at all). Also, in some games, retreat is an option only for the fastest units (which may get an automatic up to 50% loss of health).
The only possible practical solution might be is to have a certain number of combat rounds and then both sides break-off their attack until ordered to resume (by one side or the other..HC members can pre-set this like Fire Control). -
I Patton wrote:
The only possible practical solution might be is to have a certain number of combat rounds and then both sides break-off their attack until ordered to resume (by one side or the other..HC members can pre-set this like Fire Control).
It's been a while -
Automatic damage upon retreating is a good idea maybe not 50% 30% seems more reasonable
-
ShadowHawk5 wrote:
Automatic damage upon retreating is a good idea maybe not 50% 30% seems more reasonable
-
I Patton wrote:
The only possible practical solution might be is to have a certain number of combat rounds and then both sides break-off their attack until ordered to resume (by one side or the other..HC members can pre-set this like Fire Control).
-
Cheeki_Breeki wrote:
I Patton wrote:
The only possible practical solution might be is to have a certain number of combat rounds and then both sides break-off their attack until ordered to resume (by one side or the other..HC members can pre-set this like Fire Control).
-
Share
- Facebook 0
- Twitter 0
- Google Plus 0
- Reddit 0