Effect of morale from deliberate withdrawls?

[Martok]

It's now widely known that thanks to Empire's unified AI, generals (and admirals?) will now have a sense of how important a battle is, and therefore what their overall tactical goal should be. To paraphrase the recent Gamesradar preview (http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/empire-total-war/preview/empire-total-war-hands-on/a-2008092495939363067/g-20070822164625990074), if a commander is fighting a battle of little consequence, they'll usually just maximize casualties against the enemy and then withdraw.

My question is, will these commanders receive negative traits for doing so ("cowardly", "eager to retreat", etc.)? Or will traits be more realistic and reflect the strategic & tactical realities of the battles they fight?

[anders]

did you just define a "phyrric defeat" as retreating with minimal casualties? I would have thought a "phyrric defeat", is such a ting exist, were fighting to the last man and loosing, but bleeding your enemy dry in the process?

to the question, I think constant retreats and delaying actions should lower morale somewhat, regardless of the good sense and ultimate purpose behind such conduct, troops will eventually get restless and nervous if they are always pulling back from the enemy, and never getting to prove themselves.

[pevergreen]

I dont think they will be as much focused upon as they were, as the AI will do it more, by the sounds of it. I can see a positive line, if they implement a 'victory' such as "Successful Defensive Retreat" etc like the trait 'Good Staller/Delayer' 'Vanguarder' etc

Or maybe thats just me. :grin2:

[Martok]

did you just define a "phyrric defeat" as retreating with minimal casualties? I would have thought a "phyrric defeat", is such a ting exist, were fighting to the last man and loosing, but bleeding your enemy dry in the process?
Good point. Topic name changed. ~:)



to the question, I think constant retreats and delaying actions should lower morale somewhat, regardless of the good sense and ultimate purpose behind such conduct, troops will eventually get restless and nervous if they are always pulling back from the enemy, and never getting to prove themselves.
I don't know. If a general tells his troops that he *wants* to maximize damage to the enemy and then retreat, I don't think he should be penalized for that. So long as a commander makes it clear to his men that they've succeeded in achieving his goals for a particular battle, that's all that should really matter.



I dont think they will be as much focused upon as they were, as the AI will do it more, by the sounds of it. I can see a positive line, if they implement a 'victory' such as "Successful Defensive Retreat" etc like the trait 'Good Staller/Delayer' 'Vanguarder' etc

Or maybe thats just me. :grin2:
Heh. I like the "Good Staller" one. :beam:

[Polemists]

I would say both scenarios deserve a trait.

Yes there should be a trait if you retreat from the field of battle constantly and minimize casualties.



Then again there should also be a trait for if every single battle you sacrifice every man standing for pointless small villages and mines in the middle of no where.

Bloodlust or something similiar sounding.



I am hoping the general are more personalized this time around. So when you see them you can be like, "Oh no not that guy again, urban warefare time" :wall:
:beam:

[Owen Glyndwr]

I'm hoping that generals in this game will be more memorable. In RTW and M2, the generals I'm fighting don't matter, however, with new "thinking patterns" for generals will make them more memorable. If so, that would be neat because you could start feeling like your generals (and admirals for that matter) could have nemeses, like a Napoleon and Duke of Wellington, or Washington and Cornwallis, etc.

[Nelson]

I dont think they will be as much focused upon as they were, as the AI will do it more, by the sounds of it. I can see a positive line, if they implement a 'victory' such as "Successful Defensive Retreat" etc like the trait 'Good Staller/Delayer' 'Vanguarder' etc

Or maybe thats just me. :grin2:

The Romans appreciated the value of just such a man. During the Punic Wars, the dictator Quintus Fabius earned the cognomen "Cunctator" meaning "the delayer" as he lead Hanibal around Italy for years without fighting a decisive battle.

[pdoyle007]

It would be unfair to introduce this system, then have it lead to a negative trait.

I would hope 'careful with mens lives' or 'master tactician' could spring from these kind of actions, or in theory you could force an army to constantly retreat and although they're bleeding you dry you'll inflict a negative trait (and hence a penalty) on the general despite him acting sensibly.

[Knight of the Rose]

Maybe it could be a random selection: Sometimes it would result in "master retreater", at other times "coward". When the russians retreated to the other side of Moscow in 1812, there was almost a full mutiny all across the army from top officers to drummer boys, and the general was put out of charge. Later it turned out that it was in fact a brilliant move.

But to me, vices doesn't have to be "fair". If people think I'm an idiot, they'll treat me like one. If my army consideres me a coward, then their morale will plummet, even though I'm in reality a hero (sure guys, trust me :beam:)

/KotR

[ljperreira]

General Robert E. Lee was faced with this very same dilemma during the battle of Gettysburg (July 1-3, 1863). Lee's Confederate forces failed to secure the high ground after the first day of fighting, so he had to make a decision between withdrawing to better ground or sending his troops up into the Federal Army's defenses. Lee was worried that if he withdrew the Army, his troops would see the withdrawal as a retreat and become demoralized. So Gen. Lee decided to attack, and the rest is history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickett%27s_Charge

So, taken from an actual event in history, I believe that any withdrawal would probably be percieved by most as a retreat, and therefore would reflect badly on the officer in command.

[Don Esteban]

Perhaps the result could depend on casulaties caused.

For example, you retreat but have inflicted 50% more casulaties on the enemy than you have recieved - this could count as a certain type of victory or at least not a defeat.

You retreat having inflicted fought and taken heavy casulaties but saving your forces from a rout - this could have a variety of traits - successful retreater and poor defender/ attacker.

retreating quickly could have a cowardice trait attached unless it's against a superior sized army

lots of possibilities here