Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion

[thejeff]

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.

[cleveland]

thejeff said:
Either way no one notices a few stragglers fleeing.

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?

[vfb]

cleveland said:
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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

[Sombre]

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.

[cleveland]

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

...and if you've got somewhere to retreat to...

...If there's still somewhere to retreat to...

...Annihilation of his fort defenders can happen when there is no avenue of retreat.

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.

[Seve82]

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.

[Agema]

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.

[vfb]

cleveland said:

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.

thejeff said:
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.