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.