Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion

[Sombre]

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.

[vfb]

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 ).

[Agema]

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.

[Maraxus]

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.

[archaeolept]

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

[cleveland]

Maraxus said:
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.

They aren't dying, they're surrendering.

[Endoperez]

To nations like Sauromatia, who eat the captured enemies.

[Saulot]

Endoperez said:
To nations like Sauromatia, who eat the captured enemies.

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

[Wick]

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

[Seve82]

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.