Some thoughts on battle dynamics (guerilla warfare)

[Whacker]

For discussion.

I've been thinking about battle tactics lately in anticipation of the new patch, and have been concentrating mainly on the subject of archers and ranged combat. I'll prefix this by stating that I'm not even close to the best player out there, but I can hold my own.

I realized that my tactics in both RTW and M2TW tend to be somewhat "zerglike" in approach, in that in RTW I'd crank out entire stacks of Hastatii and use a flood type approach. The downside of this is the lack of unit diversity and the fact that against certain stack compositions, I'd take heavy casualties or just lose outright. The upside is that I could very easily retrain my depleted stacks on site instead of having to send them home. Using that logic and once I had Greece under control, it was pretty much game over as I could crank stuff out like there's no tomorrow. In M2TW, I found my general army to be a bit slightly more diversified, but in general I'd have some type of militia coupled with a roughly even number of heavy mounted knights (playing as English mainly). So get to the damn point! you say. The point is that I don't use ranged units, hardly at all.

In deference to Mr. DougT and the other HA fanatics hanging around, I've tried using heavily biased ranged armies, mainly in RTW, and by god it does work. The problem and the core of what I'm getting at is that more often that naught, when using a heavily arty based stack, you'll be able to kill upwards of 1/3 to 1/2, sometimes more, of an opposing stack before you run out of ammo. Now, realizing the situation you're in and that you're most often heavily outclassed in melee, the smart thing to do would often be to retreat and take the loss, giving the opponent the field and position, however it's arguably a victory for you, and a best a pyrrhic victory for your opponents. No matter what happens though, you'll still get slammed with a loss during the post-battle calcs and report. This to me is really the biggie, about the loss and the affects to your captain/general by having a loss.

The idea that I'm getting at here is allowing for this type of tactic and having a "more intelligent" post-battle calculator. If I go and attack a full melee stack with a full archer stack of my own, and I end up killing 1/2 of his stack yet retreating with 0 losses of my own, who won that battle? I'd call that a draw personally, as I didn't give up space but I didn't exactly gain any territory or capture anything. Kill 3/4 of his stack? I'd call that a victory. Here are some key points to this.

1. Movement points left is important. If your archer stack initiates the combat but does so on it's last movement point, and you attempt to retreat, logically you'd lose your entire stack as normal because you don't have the points left to retreat. If you attack with movement points left but tactically retreat, my thoughts are that all stacks involved should remain where they were pre-battle, to indicate that no ground has been taken/given. Another possible alternative is to have the retreating army move back 1 space.
2. The retreating force should not be able to recover captured men, as they are giving the field to the opponent when they retreat. Injuries I can see as it's possible to haul off an injured man while retreating, but this should be done in a sane way.
3. The AI should be able to do this as well, or at least attempt it.

Thoughts? Please note that this is entirely disregarding any multiplayer issues or balancing, this is SP discussion only.

[Maq]

Completely agree. A long time gaming friend and I have discussed this a number of times with reference to TW titles. The lack of recognition of the validity of guerilla tactics appears to be a failing of the series.

I don't know if withdrawing in good order is treated any differently to routing off the battlefield but it certainly should be.

[Ars Moriendi]

These ideas have come up before in various contexts, some even as far back as the first Medieval.

Pro : It allows for a greater variety in warfare (hit-and-run, raiding, guerilla, etc.). If well implemented it could add a lot of "color" to the campaigns.

Con : A smart human player could easily learn to use these tactics effectively. I doubt, however, that the AI will be able to return the favor. Getting hit with a loss when you retreat unharmed after inflicting heavy casualties to the enemy is somewhat unfair, but the AI needs all the help it can get if it is to pose a challenge. I don't think that it could learn to cope with the new rules, given it's current "brains".

That being said, I'd really love to see the mongols trying to pull a hit-and-run invasion on me, trying to break me by attrition... Can you imagine how difficult would be to defend against them if they could be made to learn this kind of tactics ? How many troops would you need to surround and force them to engage on your terms ?
As it stands now, unfortunately, one stack is more than enough to eliminate the horde, as they all seem to think that the best place to be for a horse archer army is on a bridge.

[HoreTore]

Uhm...

English longbowmen are extremely powerful troops.

You can shoot down anything from a quarter to half of the enemy army if you have about a half of your army as longbowmen. When you have done that, simply rush the enemy with the rest of your army as well as the archers, for example 5 knights and 5 infantry units. As the enemy will have reduced numbers, and more importantly, severely reduced morale, they will break easily. Yeoman Archers and Retinue Longbowmen are very good close combat troops.

Of course, you can't just fire away at the enemy, you'll have to choose your targets carefully. Avoid anything with pavises, and do not fire needlessly on units with big shields. Take down enemy knights first, as longbows are armour piercing, you don't waste ammo. Stop firing at a unit when it reaches about a third of its original size, as you waste arrows shooting at small units.

[pike master]

not sure if this is related but it sure would be nice to use withdrawing and harrasing tactics. for example using horse archers to thin out an enemy army then withdraw from battle over several turns you could wittle down an enemy army.

but if you do this then your general gets penalized for it. if you use your armies without generals sometimes they rebel.

[Zenicetus]

If the AI would also do this, I'd be for it. It would be a great addition to the game. But that's probably not in the cards anytime soon, so it would just end up being a player exploit.

Another problem is the free reload of ammo at the start of every battle. You could withdraw with no movement points left, be attacked by a weakened enemy in the next turn, and still start with a fresh load of ammo. I know we sort of assume there is an invisible supply train moving with your army, but it takes time in the real world to regroup and resupply. Not so in this game... you get immediate ammo refreshment. And that just increases the exploitation factor, if it's a player-only tactic.

[Foz]

I'm decidedly against rewarding gorilla tactics. My primary reason for this is that even up through the times of the American Revolutionary War, guerilla tactics were heavily frowned upon, and people engaging in them were thought to be dishonorable as a result. The fact of the matter is that no general during medieval times would have ever considered using such tactics as he had a reputation to uphold, and a general who did such things would be publicly scorned, not to mention feeling (rightly so to their thinking) some manner of shame at himself for having done it.

In game terms, what are the effects of taking a loss for guerilla tactics? The only real ones I can think of involve traits that the general can get. Granted you will have to retreat the army and haven't won the position, but that's as it should be since you did retreat from the battle. So if the only repercussion is for generals, then shouldn't the game follow the realities of the times? As I said it was shameful to do this sort of thing, and especially so in a period of time where chivalry and honor were so important. I would actually find fault with the game if it failed to penalize you for guerilla tactics, and it certainly should not reward such conduct.

[pike master]

i believe that to be true amongst most factions in the game except for the more professional armies of the byzantines. whos tactics often times involved allowing an invader into their territory and harass them while using their main forces to counterinvade the others country. or to let them come in and pillage then when they were burdened down with loot and not as well organized give battle.

i cant remember what book it was that a byzantine strategist wrote about this though.

[Locke11110]

Long answer yes with an if. Short answer No with a but. WESTERN EUROPEAN military commanders were against it. In the late medieval ages and on. In the beginning (Early Medieval, or more commonly the dark ages) it was common and even rampant. The Vikings were well known to do this, and yes while being before the set time period of this game, only a few decades before and were definitely not the only ones. Now the Muslims, the eastern european and most importantly the Mongolians used Guerilla tactics. The Turks assaulted the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Crusading armies in very complex guerilla battles. The idea that retreat isn't an option is ludicrous. retreat is not losing. In real battle tactics call for you to be flexible. The Mongols would retreat and counter multiple times in a battle. Indeed it is the general who believes retreat is not an option who is losing on one of his biggest assets, the ability to fight another day. Maybe the plan didn't go right, maybe you need different terrain, maybe your men are tired. Honestly Guerilla tactics and the ability to retreat is absolutley neccesary for any battle simulation. One classic example would be the height of english civilized battle, the battle of waterloo. The British unintentionally faked a retreat drawing Napoleons cavarly into the English square, thus destroying the Cavalry. And again when Napoleon sent his Old Guard to destroy the Remnant of the English infantry the English hid their numbers thus surprising the old guard and destroying Naploeon's army.

[pike master]

that is true. when the enemy attacks retreat.

when he halts harass.

when he retreats attack.

true the vikings whenever they encountered organized resistance they hopped back in their boats.

[zeroyuugi]

I agree with the statement that it is not necessary to the game because guerilla warfare doesn't fit into the scope of the game (for the most part)... the tactical retreat, to say nothing of more complex methods is not something a medieval (European) army (large scale) would have used...

The belief against retreating or using other less reputable methods has always been a part of the Christian war tradition and we still hold true to many of those standards (the Law of Armed Conflict presently)...

Thus it is perfectly reasonable that if you use said tactics in-game, your general might acquire traits according to his conduct.

[SMZ]

as pointed out above however, there are at least 5 factions who don't share the idea that retreating and feigned retreats are dishonorable

maybe a situation where the orthodox and muslim factions generals don't get penalized for such tactics would serve nicely... i don't think it would bother the italians that much - really it was only the cultures that centered on the knight which saw conflict as a simple matter of lining up and charging straight together, and frowned on doing anything but...

come to it, I don't think it'd bother the english, scots, danes, hungarians or polish either.... the scots have already bucked the trend by dismounting their nobles and fighting on foot with pikes, something the continental powers frown upon, which in turn drove the english to field archer heavy armies, something the continentals frown upon even more.... the hungarians and polish are kinda buying into the knight mythos, but they've still got the hit and run tactics in their systems - and the danes... well they were never fully on board either

[bobajob]

I think people are confusing idealised notions of warfare with what acutally happened. People fought to win, they didnt care about slaughtering captives or restricting weapons when it suited them nor did they care guerilla tactics.

Im not sure how you define such tactics, but skirmishes, raids on supplies, feigned retreats and ambushes were all commonly used.

Getting your main army in a postion to fight there main army total war style was just part of the story.

The modern dislike of guerilla/terrorist type of warfare stems from the fact that it usually belongs to the weaker (non western) party.



belief against retreating or using other less reputable methods has always been a part of the Christian war tradition and we still hold true to many of those standards (the Law of Armed Conflict presently)...



Err whats the rule against retreating now days???

[pike master]

yeah to think when i was young it was considered unproper in the movies of the day to see an enemy get attacked or shot from behind. now it is well excepted fact that victories were won that way. surprise attacks and deception were all features of a victorious general.but as has been said modern countries today dont like to see their armed forces withdraw from a theatre of a war to be used again more successfully somewhere else.

but in world war 2 a tactical retreat was just something that was accepted as part of the war by drawing out an armored penetration then pinching it off by withdrawing the divisions in the path of armored spearhead.

now a days even when it is clear that a compromised army should be withdrawn from a theatre in a broader war so they can reform and be used more effectively somewhere else it is frowned upon as a horrible defeat.

of course war these days is more a war of the minds and wills of the mob.and not the occupied countries people as much as it is the occupiers countries people. if an enemy can undermine his opponents mobs confidence and belief in a war than he can win that war even if he is fighting against a superior army who is killing his soldiers by the droves.

this was evident in vietnam as it is today. when the mob becomes psyched out it undermines a war effort and encourages the enemy to continue the fight which in turn undermines the war effort further.

in the future a country must take the fickleness of the mob before they go to war and understand that the reason for the war is not as important as whether it can be won successfully. of course this is somewhat controversial issue but it is not intended to be and would be based upon the opinions of one group of people as opposed to another who see it from a different point of view.

sorry for getting off topic and apologies if i have suggested anything that is controversial. just trying to get across how a nations people would view a general who conducts a tactical withdrawal at different times in history.

the germans learned to be experts at the tactical withdrawal in world war 2. of course it was forced upon them. the idea of maintaining some kind of organized force even if inferior in front of an enemy is better than that same unit being forced into battle and getting crushed.

that was interesting with washington during the american war of independence. he always kept an army in the field which is a sign of a full blown rebellion it made a statement to the british and carried discouragement to the mob at home.

i suppose any form of democracy or bilateral govt is vulnerable to being undermined by and insurgent war. but if it can be kept quited many insurgencies have been extinguished. in example in germany after ww2 it was know that nazi insurgents kept up attacks for up to 5 years before giving up which resulted from it not being revealed or discussed on the news.

oops there i go again.

[Whacker]

lots of stuff

Easy there, Star Captain McTalkative. :smash:

To me, the bottom line here is that guerilla warfare and tactics have been used since the beginning of known history and to great effect, by many many cultures. Yes, Foz is right that there was a general sense of honor associated with direct confrontation in europe during the middle ages, but as we all know all's fair in love and war, and if you need to get the job done you get the job done. It's also worth noting that it's possible to conquer the entire map with very little combat if you choose to play the game that way. I think that in general any "winning" strategy should be rewarded, no matter how one goes about it. This'd definitely make the game more realistic for people who want to use hordes of archers or HA's.

[Razor1952]

The question to me is not so much whether it should be implemented but rather that in a strategy game , the player must be faced with decisions which have an up and a down side. It strikes me that it would be very hard to balance this attack so it wasn't a must do thing, or on other hand a useless option. The ai at present has enough trouble fielding respectable armies, so adding this seems insurmountable. I'd love to be proved wrong of course.

It would have to be something implemented in a future TW game as I'm sure it couldn't be accomodated in MTW2.

[Foz]

The question to me is not so much whether it should be implemented but rather that in a strategy game , the player must be faced with decisions which have an up and a down side. It strikes me that it would be very hard to balance this attack so it wasn't a must do thing, or on other hand a useless option. The ai at present has enough trouble fielding respectable armies, so adding this seems insurmountable. I'd love to be proved wrong of course.

It would have to be something implemented in a future TW game as I'm sure it couldn't be accomodated in MTW2.
Very good point. If you allow retreats that have no downside whatsoever and can actually count as wins and thus boost your general's stats, then why should anyone ever do anything besides this? As it stands, you can take advantage of your ability to retreat, but not without costs associated. Without those drawbacks, it would be viable to field an all artillery army and just keep throwing it against enemies, wasting all ammo, and retreating, all the while growing a powerful general. Clearly that kind of situation is not the best for maintaining a playable, fun, and challenging game...

[Locke11110]

not neccesarily, just because you have all artillery and can leave doesn't mean you will do it as a whole. The enemy will run you down before all your artillery and their men can leave. That is why the mongolians were so amazingly succesful, they could tear down the enemy before the enemy could react. There is no unit superior to the horse archer before gun powder, and now with gunpowder what is becoming more succsefull, helicopters. They are the horses of the new world. Quick assualting, quick retreat. Large arsenal with insane agility and speed. What was the basis of black hawk down, a helicopter was taken down, which is somewhat unheard of, because it was stationary for too long and got hit. To come to the point, hit and run tactics don't mean you can destroy an army, it just weakens morale and wears them down before the final thurst.

[Ars Moriendi]

@foz & razor :
While it would be indeed difficult to introduce guerilla tactics to TW without breaking the game balance, it's not impossible : let's remember that this kind of warfare was used historically mostly in asymmetrical conflicts, by the weaker side. So what if the retreat penalty would be abolished only when you start the battle heavily outnumbered - say 1-to-4, or worse ? If this would be the case, the hit-and-run attacks will be used only when there's really no other option but to harass and delay your enemy.
Just a theory, I guess we won't know for sure if it works until we can try it...

[Goofball]

I haven't tried it yet, but can you not at least use the "hit and run" tactic when under siege?

I believe that if you sally, bloody the nose of your enemy, retreat all of your troops into your city/castle, then exit the battle, the battle result will be a draw with no penalty to you for not winning it outright.

Is this correct?

[Whacker]

Friends, I have a few more points to consider after reading the responses so far.

While the TW games are an abstracted form of combat at best, they do actually do a decent job of simulating and compressing actual massed battle into a playable form.

With that said, I think one thing that several posters have not taken into account is that battle is far more than just killing your enemy. Position, both real and relative, is incredibly vital.

Let's go back to my original example of 2 full stacks, one nothing but melee, the other nothing but archers. They meet on open ground, both with ample movement points when the battle is initiated. I, being the archer stack, am the attacker. I go in, proceed to unload all of my ammunition, killing say 1/2 of his stack, and then proceed to retreat with 0 losses. When the battle is over, I have in effect reduced his numbers by half, AND given him the field (technically, allowed his stack to retain it's position on the campaign map, I had I won I would have taken it). Thus, in my mind, this is actually a victory. While the computer can't take into account human intent, and that mine was just to engage and weaken him, NOT to take his position, it should be able to take other factors into account. First, I clearly came out the better, with no losses, and him with 1/2 his stack gone. Two, in terms of position, we're back at where we originally started (unless we want to say that in retreat, the computer moves my stack backwards 1 square so there's 1 square separating us).

I think the position item is key point I'm getting at with my guerilla tactics idea. While one could argue that it's not as important in the TW games since Rome, I'd differ in that attacking from the right spot in the right area can afford a much better chance of victory, all things accounted for. I'd also like to differ with Foz's statement that this "clearly would make the game more boring", I think that this would open up a whole new realm of awesome possibilities, especially if the AI is able to take this into account in at least some rudimentary form.

Cheers!

[Doug-Thompson]

Ah, the weekend. Now I have time to read again.

Frankly, I just do this and eat any bad traits penalty. I had to do it a lot more as the Parthians in RTW than I've ever had to do in MTW2, however. It's a aggravation, and it is true that an "enlightened ruler" would use a fluid strategy.

However such a strategy historically aroused resentment, criticism and second-guessing. There is a price to be paid.

[Czar Alexsandr]

It's dis-honourable to use guerilla warfare? Hmmm. That's too bad. :laugh4:

Well when you're outnumbered I don't see why it'd be bad. I do agree that retreating shouldn't always inncur a penalty. I mean, isn't it better to get your men out when you think losses will be too high? And yet still you get traits that damage your standing with the troops. Personally I'd prefer a patient general than a rash proud general that will risk high losses for anything other than a clear victory. Victory should be decisive and if you don't have quite the punch to do that than re-grouping or entering guerilla warfare shouldn't be penalized. Sorry, lol. I'm a turtler. I get upset every time I losse one of my pixelated soldiers.

[pike master]

he who laughs and runs away, will live to fight another day.:charge:

[bobajob]

Its hard to try and represent things like this in a way thats both fun and playable and also not a complete exploit for a human player v ai.

I would like to see things like this implemented abstractly by some sort of attrition effect. I would like to see a cost or loss of men for moving large stacks round thru enemy territory or seiging.

Perhaps also in some sort of battle positioning. You can see a attempt to do this with ambushes and night battles but you could go further - the better general could restrict deployment options or remove them, perhaps split armies up on the tac map or delay units arrival or maybe even flip the attack defence roles.

[Whacker]

he who laughs and runs away, will live to fight another day.:charge:

Exactly.

I am also a turtler too Alexandr, and I tend to use mainly cav in M2. It'd be great to be able to use these types of tactics with archers and not get penalized for it. I can understand not being rewarded for doing guerilla warfare, esp. in the "pre-battles" where you inflict damage then retreat. But being penalized for it, and the bad traits that go with it? That I don't like or want, and is enough to make me consider using general-less stacks to be able to do it. I guess my point is if they aren't going to reward us for effective use, don't penalize us. That I could at least deal with.

[Zpartan]

Agreed when used with horse archers, because given any size of field and no battle map borders they can outrun other cav and infantry. But with archers it should still count as a loss still, I would think maybe I'm wrong cav would eventually catch them seeing as there is no borders for battlemaps in "real" life. No hiding in the corner shooting till the enemy gets close than retreating off the map.

[Foz]

Agreed when used with horse archers, because given any size of field and no battle map borders they can outrun other cav and infantry. But with archers it should still count as a loss still, I would think maybe I'm wrong cav would eventually catch them seeing as there is no borders for battlemaps in "real" life. No hiding in the corner shooting till the enemy gets close than retreating off the map.
While this idea makes some sense from a realism standpoint, it does not from a game balance standpoint. The maneuverability of HAs gives them a pretty good advantage in battle already. Giving them the ability to slip in and out of battles at will with no repercussions at all, while more realistic, probably ends up being an advantage that they simply should not have in order to be reasonable in comparison with other troops.

As for withdrawal from the battlefield... from a balance standpoint I would actually prefer to see it gone entirely from the game. A tactical withdrawal so far is something the AI will never execute, and so no matter how you slice it it ends up that this gives the player an unnecessary advantage. If reading the forums is any indication, then I'd suggest that measures against such lopsided gameplay must be implemented where possible, as many players cannot help but take any advantage they can to win (not judging that, just stating simple fact - it's hard to resist). So while some can actively avoid taking advantage of such lopsided facets of the game, it seems a sizable portion will use them, and in doing so make the game less challenging, which usually means too easy, and less fun. So while we may not like having less options at our disposal, I would say that in many cases the limits imposed on us actually force us to have more fun playing the game.

If the AI gets to the point where it can regularly wreck you with a stack of HAs using a tactical withdrawal strategy, then I'd be all for letting that play out in the game. Until then, though, it seems in the best interest of good gameplay to at least not make it any easier to use this tactic.

[diotavelli]

I'm decidedly against rewarding gorilla tactics. My primary reason for this is that even up through the times of the American Revolutionary War, guerilla tactics were heavily frowned upon, and people engaging in them were thought to be dishonorable as a result. The fact of the matter is that no general during medieval times would have ever considered using such tactics as he had a reputation to uphold, and a general who did such things would be publicly scorned, not to mention feeling (rightly so to their thinking) some manner of shame at himself for having done it.

This is plain wrong. Lots of things were heavily frowned upon during medieval times and yet still prevalent in warfare. The use of archers in large numbers, especially as used by the English in the Hundred Years War, was considered thoroughly unchivalric but it worked. Did the French grumble about it? Too right. Did they respect Edward III, the Black Prince and Henry V as successful and threatening opponents? Too right.

As for guerilla tactics - how do they differ substantively from the tactics utilised by the French under Du Guesclin? Whenever possible, he refused to fight the English on their terms but attacked them when they were vulnerable and avoided pitched battles otherwise. Classic guerilla warfare.

The ideals of chivalry were important to the self-image of the knightly classes in this period but that should not be confused with the fact that successful generals were practical fighters. Almost all the great 'chivalric' generals have a few notable unchivalric episodes to their name.

It would be more accurate to say that the fact of the matter is that no successful general during medieval times would have considered putting chivalry above success on the battlefield and their tactics at times reflected that. A reputation for chivalry was all well and good but a reputation for winning was what got you land, power, influence and wealth.

[Zenicetus]

I can understand not being rewarded for doing guerilla warfare, esp. in the "pre-battles" where you inflict damage then retreat. But being penalized for it, and the bad traits that go with it? That I don't like or want, and is enough to make me consider using general-less stacks to be able to do it. I guess my point is if they aren't going to reward us for effective use, don't penalize us. That I could at least deal with.

You're penalized to discourage this tactic, because otherwise it would be a massive player exploit. Good strategy game designs are symmetrical; the player isn't allowed to do something the AI can't do. There is also an instant ammo refresh at the start of every battle, which further unbalances the tactic. In real armies, it takes at least some time to regroup and restock supplies. If you could attack and withdraw several times in a turn (given enough movement points) without any penalty, the instant ammo reload would tilt the table drastically in favor of ranged units.

Maye we'll see balanced guerrilla tactics modeled in a future TW title. I certainly wouldn't mind it because it's realistic and historical, for many factions. Although I'm not sure how many players would actually like it, if used by the AI. Imagine how tough the Mongols and other horse archer factions would be, if they could hit and run. It might bring more challenge to the game, or it might be incredibly frustrating. A majority of people probably play these games for fun, rather than pure historical simulation.

[Whacker]

Good strategy game designs are symmetrical; the player isn't allowed to do something the AI can't do.

Well then color M2TW a bad strategy game, because there are a number of things the AI can do a player can't! (heavy sarcasm) :grin: The lack of crusade desertion sticks out in my mind.


There is also an instant ammo refresh at the start of every battle, which further unbalances the tactic. In real armies, it takes at least some time to regroup and restock supplies. If you could attack and withdraw several times in a turn (given enough movement points) without any penalty, the instant ammo reload would tilt the table drastically in favor of ranged units.

Well, taking this into account I'd agree, but as you stated the TW game is an approximation. If you play a modded 2 turns per year game, then in theory any actions and movements you do each turn represent 6 months of game time. Therefore, it's possible to assume that a good stretch of time passes between each battle, even if you attack back to back. Hence the replenishment doesn't seem like such an issue then.

While it seems a number of folks don't like this "because the AI can't do it", I don't agree that it doesn't mean the player shouldn't be able to do it and at least break even or not be penalized. There are a lot of sneaky conniving things the human mind can do that the TW AI will never do and isn't programmed to do or handle, this is a prime example.

[Foz]

Well then color M2TW a bad strategy game, because there are a number of things the AI can do a player can't! (heavy sarcasm) :grin: The lack of crusade desertion sticks out in my mind.
As many people have pointed out, you will never realistically make the AI play the game as well as a human can. Since the human already has the advantage then, the point is to remove human exploits to keep the field as close to level as possible. No such restriction exists toward the AI though: it is certainly allowed to do a few things humans cannot, otherwise how can we expect it to put up a reasonable fight if we already know it cannot match us tactically? I cite Starcraft as a prime example of this: the computer cheated like crazy, but it wasn't a bad thing - in fact, it's one of the things that made the game so great. The near-omniscient AI would attack weak spots, expand into empty areas, and generally do very intelligent things, b/c it knew the state of the whole map without scouting it. Yet the players didn't complain: we celebrated the level of competition the game achieved. And so it is with all strategy games: The AI won't have an edge in tactics, so the prudent thing to do is give it some edge in other areas to make it better able to combat a human opponent, and thus play better than its tactics alone would actually allow.


This is plain wrong. Lots of things were heavily frowned upon during medieval times and yet still prevalent in warfare. The use of archers in large numbers, especially as used by the English in the Hundred Years War, was considered thoroughly unchivalric but it worked.
Granted, war has and always will still be war, and invariably brings a measure of vile deeds with it. That said, you cannot compare the use of archers to the practice of retreating from the field of battle - in morale effect alone they are entirely different animals, not to mention other facets. Concerning the tactics of Du Guesclin, what you've described (I know nadda about him, I'm no historian) may be considered guerilla warfare, but for the most part seems to depart from the actions at hand: those being joining a battle, only to then retreat. Smartly choosing where and when to fight are simply not the same as joining battle and then retreating, and the former can be entirely accomplished with patience and possibly the use of the pre-battle withdrawal, which should be quite effective at avoiding those battles you feel put you in a strategically inferior position.


The ideals of chivalry were important to the self-image of the knightly classes in this period but that should not be confused with the fact that successful generals were practical fighters. Almost all the great 'chivalric' generals have a few notable unchivalric episodes to their name.

It would be more accurate to say that the fact of the matter is that no successful general during medieval times would have considered putting chivalry above success on the battlefield and their tactics at times reflected that. A reputation for chivalry was all well and good but a reputation for winning was what got you land, power, influence and wealth.
Agreed. I did manage to misrepresent the situation substantially (please pardon my sometimes overly-optimistic impression of humanity). It's too easy to forget that war's ultimate purpose is to serve itself, and winning at all costs is the primary expression of that. Everything else is merely a secondary concern.

Concerning Land, power, influence, and wealth: Hmm... none of those are in the game, at least not relating to generals really. Perhaps the occasional trait mentioning influence or money, but not as achievable commodities in the sense you meant. So, the benefits of winning using these tactics are, then, things mostly inconsequential to the game, and such benefits really could not be represented in the game's current state: they simply don't affect gameplay.

By the way, why are we focusing on chivalry so much? As far as I'm aware, loss of chivalry is not among the penalties for using such tactics as have been described here. These things, however, are:

Bad Attacker
Bad Defender
Bad Commander
Bad Risky Attacker
Bad Risky Defender
Bad Infantry General
Bad Cavalry General
Bad Siege Attacker
Bad Engineer
Bad Siege Defender
Bad Ambusher
Noctophobia
Various Hates n' Fears
Discontent General

Nearly all of those directly affect the general's command star rating, not his chivalry or other attributes. So then shouldn't the discussion revolve around those command stars and what they mean?

Taken conceptually, I suppose you'd have to say they represent the leadership power and the tactical prowess of the man, in the capacity of being a general. Looked at that way, it doesn't make much sense to penalize that stat when the general uses guerilla tactics.

Taken in game terms, the only thing anyone knows for sure is that the command stat affects the morale of your troops. From that perspective, it does make sense in a lot of cases for that stat to be negatively impacted by the "underhanded" tactics the general is employing. It's not unrealistic to suggest that the troops could be demoralized by the ill reputation their general is acquiring. Similarly the men may not agree with the general's methods, giving them less confidence in his leadership. Likewise it would not be as easy for the men to understand and rally behind such tactics: there had to be a certain amount of glory and magic associated with a straight-up field battle, and the typical lesser minds comprising the bulk of the army would probably have real difficulty understanding why battles should be fought any other way.

I'm not in any way trying to say that's a ringing endorsement for the current game behavior... just saying it's not obvious at all that the current game behavior represents anything that couldn't or wouldn't actually happen during a successful guerilla campaign, and the matter probably deserves some more thought/discussion.


You're penalized to discourage this tactic, because otherwise it would be a massive player exploit. Good strategy game designs are symmetrical; the player isn't allowed to do something the AI can't do. There is also an instant ammo refresh at the start of every battle, which further unbalances the tactic. In real armies, it takes at least some time to regroup and restock supplies. If you could attack and withdraw several times in a turn (given enough movement points) without any penalty, the instant ammo reload would tilt the table drastically in favor of ranged units.
Speaking of reality, I call into play the limitations of the square battlefield. How realistic is it to suggest that you can escape a battle just by stepping over a red line? My point isn't that it shouldn't be that way: it's that we need to consider this situation inside the confines of the game. In reality, if you get close enough to shoot arrows at some guys, there's no "orderly withdrawal" for you. You run like crazy, or those guys are going to catch you. That army could chase you for miles and miles, further forcing your retreat. However, in a turn-based game there is no real way to portray this. Since there's no way for units to chase the retreating units off the battlefield and indefinitely across whatever terrain, then there should at least be some measure in place preventing that little red line from being completely unfair. Frankly the method in place doesn't seem nearly enough. I'd really prefer some mandatory attrition to the retreating army: I doubt many armies in history could execute a full retreat without losing at least some of their number to enemy units giving chase (should they choose to do so). After all everyone knows that some charging knights would catch fleeing foot archers in a matter of seconds if that red line wasn't holding them back.

In conclusion... sorry for the length of the post, I know it's Looooong... and for the scatter-brained nature of it. I guess I had a lot to say on a bunch of different topics...

[a_ver_est]

Since RTW I wanted to use my artillery to burn down a city destroying all their infrastructure and then retread. But I have never done it because it will give to my general bad traits.

I think that all these tactics are usefully in real live but in game most off us play to conquer new provinces not to weaken the enemy. So if they were implemented I am not sure if people would use them.

Anyway it should be better let the player decide which kind of war prefers

[Slaists]

Very good point. If you allow retreats that have no downside whatsoever and can actually count as wins and thus boost your general's stats, then why should anyone ever do anything besides this? As it stands, you can take advantage of your ability to retreat, but not without costs associated. Without those drawbacks, it would be viable to field an all artillery army and just keep throwing it against enemies, wasting all ammo, and retreating, all the while growing a powerful general. Clearly that kind of situation is not the best for maintaining a playable, fun, and challenging game...

the way the game is now, one can actually retreat with no penalty to a general: send in a captain to harrass (especially effective with horse archer armies), while the general waits to deliver the final blow. i have used this playing turkish, harassing european crusader armies along their path to their targets. only weak remnants reached jerusalem where they were easily crushed by the main army.

[Whacker]

the way the game is now, one can actually retreat with no penalty to a general: send in a captain to harrass (especially effective with horse archer armies), while the general waits to deliver the final blow. i have used this playing turkish, harassing european crusader armies along their path to their targets. only weak remnants reached jerusalem where they were easily crushed by the main army.

That's true, but two points to consider.

1. I *think* the game actually keeps track of losses for that captain, so if you eventually want to try and promote them, you might end up with Dingledorf the Dumbbutt with 0 good traits and 3 bad ones as your new favorite in-law.

2. It'd just be nicer IMO to be able to do this with a general and gain experience and (possibly) some positive traits/ancils.

[Slaists]

That's true, but two points to consider.

1. I *think* the game actually keeps track of losses for that captain, so if you eventually want to try and promote them, you might end up with Dingledorf the Dumbbutt with 0 good traits and 3 bad ones as your new favorite in-law.

2. It'd just be nicer IMO to be able to do this with a general and gain experience and (possibly) some positive traits/ancils.

Well, before adoption, you are given the option to see the traits of the candidate. If you do not like him: just send him "back to the pool"... next!

[Whacker]

Well, before adoption, you are given the option to see the traits of the candidate. If you do not like him: just send him "back to the pool"... next!

Yeah that's true, but perhaps I live a charmed (virtual) life. :grin: 9 times out of 10 the game gives me a pretty damn good candidate, the other times he's just medicore or has a few of those bad traits I don't want to deal with. I've come to depend on this as well as I can usually predict, at least in RTW, when I'm going to come out far enough ahead in a battle that it's going to give me the option to adopt, and as such I depend on being presented with a good character. /shrug