Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Apparently, units defending a stormed fortress survive if they retreat from the battle.

This seems unthematic to me. I'm curious to know what the community thinks.

Should fort defenders - who otherwise couldn't leave the besieged fortress, and would die if retreating during a sally - survive if they retreat when the fortress is stormed?

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

I kind of agree they should be killed, thematically speaking. I wouldn't mind if that's what actually happened.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

But what about the secret escape tunnel every castle has?

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Fort defenders can survive if they retreat during a sally (break siege). They can retreat to any neighboring friendly provinces. They just can't retreat back into the fort.

Apparently nearly all forts have a secret escape passage in the rear. "To the tunnels!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

I was definitely envisaging a secret escape tunnel. If I had a fort, it would have a secret escape tunnel. Obviously the would-be gods of the Dominions world think similarly.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

I think retreat from a besieged fort should either be impossible or at the very least fraught with danger.

Some percentage chance of escape after the castle has been stormed based on the patrol strength of the besieging army perhaps.

You could also argue that non-stealth troops/leaders should be able to withdraw before the castle is stormed, taking the risk that they will be discovered be the besieging army whilst making their escap. This would again be based on the patrol strength of the besieging army - perhaps with bonuses accrueing with the length of the siege.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

I think it's fine as is. Historically completely surrounding a fortress was a difficult and time consuming practice. Sieging a castle was avoided if at all possible (there was actually an intricate system of parley where time lines for the siege could be established, whereby the occupants would surrender if help did not arrive in time, and/or time given for a vassal to ask his liege for instructions), and sieging involved spreading your forces thin to encircle the entirety of the castle's perimeter.

From a realistic perspective since your forces are clearly storming the castle from the front, whole hog, I see no reason why this should involve the death of all the occupants. Castles were built with the idea that one could retreat from one secure area to the next as they fell, allowing a small contingent of soldiers to inflict massive casualties on a relatively much larger force.

From a game play perspective I see no problem with the fact that once you've conquered all the territories around the fortress, your reward is that all the defenders die, and your punishment for not doing so is that some of the defenders might escape. By removing the escaping of the defenders, you remove an interesting choice that the seigers have to make.

I know, multiple times, I've made particular strategic moves to cut off retreat lines.

Ask Lazy Perfectionist. He was playing LA Atlantis against my LA R'yleh. I was able to corner his go, and attack both flanking provinces at the same time. Though none of my 300 + lobo guards could even damage his like 35 defense 23 protection God who also had Luck, they managed to kill enough other guys to force him to retreat.

Imagine the same scenario in a castle. It would be a lot less interesting from a gameplay perspective if all I had to do was pin him down and then route his forces. Instead I would have had to, quite literally, surround the castle.

I also think it allows for interesting scenarios. Maybe where you have two armies. One inside of a castle, one outside, and you conquer a single territory outside a castle, allowing your first army to attack the invaders, and then retreat back into that territory, thereby surrendering the castle, but preserving your forces.

Jazzepi

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

They just dial up the Stargate to an adjacent province.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Can they retreat if someone is still besieging? Or does that only happen when the besieger sent all of his forces to storm the castle?

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Just tested: yes, retreating defenders will survive even if the attacker leaves a commander on "Siege."

Page 69 of the manual, under Break Siege movement command: "Units which retreat are eliminated." If you're sure they aren't eliminated, then [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Bug.gif[/img]?

Then shouldn't the fort defender be able to freely move troops in & out of the fort? In my mind, whatever circumstance prevents defenders from leaving a besieged fort should also prevent them from safely fleeing it when stormed.

It is the Fargate. We're not getting sued.



There's a larger strategic consequence here:
Intuitively, when an enemy force approaches one of my forts, I SHOULD face two choices:
(1) withdraw the defenders, sacrificing the fort but saving the troops
OR
(2) dig in, keeping the fort at the risk of the defenders' annihilation

Instead, I'm faced with no such choice: the smartest, most obvious option is to always dig in; if besieged, simply teleport in as many BagsOfWine needed to keep the troops full; when the walls are breached, retreat. I get to have my cake and eat it too: I deny my enemy the fort (and more importantly, his besieging army) for as long as possible, and STILL get to keep my defenders. Nonsense.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

I like it the way it is. This is just another case of the manual being completely wrong.

From a gameplay standpoint I agree with Jazzepi and from a theme perspective you can argue it either way. Unless something is obviously wrong in terms of flavour or basic common sense, theme shouldn't come into it.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

I got confused by the wording in the manual on this too.

It actually says, "Units which retreat are eliminated instead of being able to return to the fortress."

What that means is, they cannot break siege, then retreat to the fortress. The manual does not say they cannot retreat to a neighboring province.

I like it the way it works now (if you hadn't guessed that already http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif).

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Survivors from the losing side of a siege isn't that improbable. During the rout some could escape the fortress outright through tunnels, sewers, maybe a river or the sea if there's one available. Some might play dead, or hide, remove their uniforms and pretend to be non-combatants, then rejoin the cause when it's safe.

In terms of famous survivors from a siege in myth (and Dom3 is surely based on myths!), Aeneas and a load of Trojans escaped Troy to later found the progenitor of Rome.

Edit:
Actually, I should add: if you want additional casualties after a siege, you should give an additional morale bonus to the defenders. If their chance of dying after routing is increased, you can bet they'd fight a lot harder too.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Moral failure describes: "This unit values it's life higher then the victory in the battle. This (in case of really slow units, this combined with a total lack of battle-overview) makes them retreat rather then fight on."

I think you should avoid "fleeing troops die" as much as possible, unless you add a really good "nothing to loose" boost to moral for such situations.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

eh, it does allow the "exploit" or sortieing w/ your army set to retreat... you could save your entire besieged force that way

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

They aren't dying, they're surrendering.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

To nations like Sauromatia, who eat the captured enemies.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Those are only dirty rumors, you can't prove a thing!

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Never mind the banners of flayed men, move along, nothing to see here.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Them undeads have crunchy yummy bones to chew on! - Anonymous Sauromantian soldier

And historically ends of sieges were not exactly bloodless events as armies usually killed lots of civilians as well as remainders of defending armies. There were no geneva conventions to mess will honest slaughering of your foes.

Actually I would like to have options of treating civilians and or prisoners of war as multichoise after taking province/castle.

Doesn't really feel like proper evil pretender god if you cant have this:

Mongol General: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.
Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women.
Mongol General: That is good! That is good.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Seve82:

Do you know any wars that made use of geneva conventions? I think that is just a dead and worthless thing because no one respects it.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

The Geneva Convention is just a set of rules, nations and individuals can choose to obey them or not. However, its existence provides accountability, i.e. if you do bad things you will be tried for war crimes when we catch you. So in that sense all wars make use of the Geneva Convention. But yes, there's always someone that does something we consider reprehensible even in the context of a war.

I think cleveland's idea of making all forts into the Alamo sounds like it would increase strategic options. But I don't expect anything to change and the way things are now isn't bad.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

sector24:

That means completely nothing. The only way to judge anyone for breaking Convention is to win war against him. So it changes nothing - previously if you won a war you killed/punished your opponent. Wars now are not less bloody - look at Africa, Kosovo, Iraq. It is just wishful thinking that Convention like that will change anything.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

The existence of laws don't deter all criminals, but they do deter some. The Geneva Convention might not stop an Iraqi dictator but it will stop an American one. So it's not useless. But this is off topic, so we don't have to agree.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

It basically comes down to the game not being complex enough to cover whether or not units can retreat. The game would have to include other features such as:
1) A hidden escape tunnel (possible new structure or spell)
2) Retreating units would need to fight enemy units patrolling the castle. Basically the units would start the battle already routing and need to run past the patrollers.
3) Some castles depending on terrain could also make retreat impossible... a sort of "Helms Deep" with no tunnels. It would be wrong to assume all castles have no way of retreat.
4) An in-game formula which has a percentage of those retreating disappear from wild animals, being lost, loss of faith, etc,. .
5) Retreating via boat if one of the commanders has sailing and water provinces are nearby thus reaching friendly province(s) across water.

In any case this discussion should wait until the beginning of development for DOM_4... we're not going to see a code change this late in the game.

Only in our recent modern history does surrendering exist with a happy ending. I don't think any troops would be willing to surrender to late age ERMOR or middle age C'Tis and other such nations.
If late age ERMOR won the castle you were patrolling... and you surrendered... they would instantly turn you undead to make sure you wouldn't surrender again.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

@ NTJedi
I'm a bit confused. Do you:
(A) agree with me that routed defenders SHOULD NOT survive,
or
(B) disagree with me, arguing instead that routed defenders SHOULD survive, as is currently the case
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

I believe routed defenders should not survive if the game had additional programming to provide scenarios creating valuable strategies to the game. Such as patrollers would have a second battle screen where routed units run past them.

It's definitely a good game suggestion, let's hope Illwinter is inspired to create a Dominions_4 where a more realistic scene of troops routing can exist which would increase strategic gameplay.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Just cap the adjacent provinces if you want to kill off the defenders, if you can't manage that your army doesn't really control the field enough to justify a complete elimination of the defenders.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Conventions of war:

There were some conventions of war as far back as the Crusades and possibly before. They weren't always applied, though. In some cases in the crusades, defenders of a castle were converted at swordpoint and then released (the conversion didn't stick, oddly enough, and the soldiers in question probably went home and joined their army again).

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Following that line of reasoning, why then can't a defender freely reinforce/evacuate an unsurrounded fortress?

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Because during the battle there is chaos and confusion, mostly clustered around the gates. And afterwards, the invaders are busy looting the city. Either way no one notices a few stragglers fleeing.

During the siege, the attackers are spread out camped around the castle, watching for attacks and reinforcements.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

By the current rules of the game, I can set my entire besieged army to "retreat" and suffer zero casualties when my fort is finally stormed.

Try it for yourself: create a 1000-strong army of undead (mindless, thereby reducing the time till the fort is reduced), stash them in a fort, and siege it. When the walls are breached, retreat your entire army. EVERY single troop will survive.

This should unsettle every member of this community: in a game were every strategy has a cost, there is essentially no risk to defending a threatened fortress. When an enemy army approaches your fort, the ONLY intelligent thing to do is to stay put. If the province is captured, teleport in a few supply items, sit back, and collect your gems while your defenders delay your opponent's advance. When they eventually manage to break through the walls, retreat your entire army, and fight another day.

Thus, from the offensive perspective, fort sieging & storming is a fool's errand, as your opponent risks nothing, while you pay the opportunity cost to siege.

But, if the defender is instead forced to consider the annihilation of his fort defenders...well, I'll say that some very interesting strategic situations will arise, and that's what we paid for, right?

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Sure, if you want to take the chance that nothing's teleporting into/attacking the provinces around your fort.

If you're not being attacked by flyers, Soul Slayers, etc. etc., and if you've got somewhere to retreat to.

You're army is not very effective if it's not doing anything. What about the poor peasants being ravaged in the countryside?

If there's still somewhere to retreat to. You may have been better off consolidating your forces earlier.

Well, sieges are supposed to be tough. I believe somewhere someone said "the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities" or something along those lines. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Annihilation of his fort defenders can happen when there is no avenue of retreat. And your army didn't even get to fight, so they are missing out on all the fun, poor guys.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Mindless undead survive retreat orders? This is news to me. I thought they exploded.

I don't get why it bothers you so much. You can still surround, cut off and kill the defenders. If they just sit there doing nothing,.. who cares? The fort isn't recruiting, the province income is going to the occupying force,.. I don't see that as a big advantage to the player being sieged. No sensible player is going to waste the time of his main army sieging your fort.

It seems like you might be thinking of SP where the AI will simply stop dead at a fort. I would think there that the power of call of the winds as a defensive tool was far more of a problem than being able to retreat safely when they storm.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Following that line of reasoning, why then can't a defender freely reinforce/evacuate an unsurrounded fortress?

Edit @Sombre: It just seems grossly unthematic to me, and an interesting point of discussion. <font color="orange"> </font>

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Well I think that if ye put all yer troops to retreat and put one not so easy to kill commander to couple turns of hold b4 retreat one gets all his troops out of field unscathed even undeads. This doesn't ofcourse take into account enemy flyers, ranged spells or archers which would cause some casualties even on full reatreat order as all troops propably wont exit in one turn if defender has 100+ troops.

And that comment about conquering castle provinces surrounding provinces to prevent escape is absurd as this games scale is not that small. These provinces are not small areas. Thus you all ready have all areas surrounding castle and remnants of enemy castle defenders are retreating through them.

I also find fact that one can't put any pd b4 capturing castle bit odd as one allready has that province in his control.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion
 

Bear in mind for every unit you have tied up in a fort, that's one less unit you have able to fight on the map. So you can throw more troops in and hold your opponent up (then retreat), but you're really just using troops that can fight elsewhere for holding your opponent's army up longer.

If you retreat, you take no losses, but neither does your opponent, so yes you get your army out, but his comes out virtually unscathed too.

There are situations where one tactic may be stronger than another, but for the most part it's a case of trading off some advantages over others.

Re: Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion