Debate and Duel (D&D)

[Osium]

Essentially they auto die like Mercs ;p Its simply a technicality if they explode in a plume of blood on the screen, or you have to simulate it in your mind off screen ;p

So like me, he probably wasn't aware they did that and when he found out they did it was a little deflating, he had built up a fair bit towards this and it fell flat.

Live and learn ;p

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Osium:
Essentially they auto die like Mercs ;p Its simply a technicality if they explode in a plume of blood on the screen, or you have to simulate it in your mind off screen ;p

Since the unit is guaranteed to die if they retreat, scripted retreat orders should probably be ignored in this case.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Osium:
So like me, he probably wasn't aware they did that and when he found out they did it was a little deflating, he had built up a fair bit towards this and it fell flat.

Live and learn ;p

This is why I think there is merit to the idea of trying basic strategies out in SP, first, if for no other reason than to get a better handle on the way the game works. Once you understand game mechanics to a reasonable degree (the word 'reasonable' and the value of 'degree' being subject to debate), then one will be better prepared to try things out on much-less-predictable humans in MP.

Personally, I prefer to try to avoid making what are often silly mistakes where others can see them. I'm sure I'll make plenty of other mistakes in full view of the world, so there's no need for me to make it worse by being underprepared.

[Osium]

I agree. If a unit cannot retreat and live they should not retreat period scripted or otherwise, and if they are scripted they ignore the order much like they will ignore the order to cast a specific spell if the target is out of range. I mean if you're encircled or trapped you're not gonna try and run away. Maybe a feature we can wish for in the future?

[Arryn]

The no-retreat on assassinations is deliberate. I seriously doubt that it will be changed. Nor should it be, IMO, since it's also realistic. Lastly, and most importantly, being allowed to retreat would significantly disbalance this aspect of the game.

I don't know if it would unbalance the game, but it would make assassins much more survivable. Unless of course they give the Move and Patrol order to armies moving into opponents terrain. Thus nulling the effect of the retreat.

I'm torn on that particular debate because I like assassins, but I don't want them to be a standard fare and make the nations with them suddenly much more powerful while the ones without, would have a significant disadvantage.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Osium:
I agree. If a unit cannot retreat and live they should not retreat period scripted or otherwise, and if they are scripted they ignore the order much like they will ignore the order to cast a specific spell if the target is out of range. I mean if you're encircled or trapped you're not gonna try and run away. Maybe a feature we can wish for in the future?

That'd make for a very interesting motivational feature, if units that cannot retreat and live become unbreakable. It'd also make for an interesting application of the Art of War, where it states that when you surround an army, that you should leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.

Nothing would drive this point in harder than discovering that your opponent will no longer break when he has nowhere to run. And you could then apply the Cortez strategy: When Cortez arrived in the Americas, he burned the boats so that they couldn't retreat: The men were thus more motivated.