Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion

[cleveland]

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?

[CUnknown]

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

[Meglobob]

But what about the secret escape tunnel every castle has?

[vfb]

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!"

[llamabeast]

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.

[Digress]

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.

[Jazzepi]

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

[sector24]

They just dial up the Stargate to an adjacent province.

[NTJedi]

cleveland said:
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?

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.

cleveland said:

They aren't dying, they're surrendering.

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.

[cleveland]

@ 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