Retreat BS

[Goodridge]

Is anyone else sick of the 'disheartended by constant retreat bs?' on several occassions I have had strong units that have not suffered damage or fatigue flee after I have maneuvered them around. They can be rallied, but immediatly flee again.

This is utterly ridiculous.

If I was telling them to break from combat or rout or something I could understand. But all I am doing is maneuvering units in the face of the enemy to gain a better position.

Warfare is all about maneuver. It is one of the basic principles of war taught to cadets such as myself. Today that means lighting fast movement over large areas using modern technology. In pre-mechanization / airmobile warfare, maneuver was carried out by armies outmanuevering each other on the strategic and tactical level through marches to obtain a better position. This was not fleeing (ussually). The best commanders of this kind of warfare were not the big warriors who could kill their enemies in person. The best commanders were the leaders that could maneuver their armies and units into the best positions.

For a game that seems to replicate the importance of maneuver (flank and rear attacks) it seems odd that maneuvering in the face of the enemy would be penalized.

Let me give two examples of this:

1) My German province is invaded by a larger Byz army. I have only 2 units of Halbs against Kats, archers, and mixed infantry. Once I saw what I was facing I manuvered my units to a wooded hill where I would be shieled from the cavalry and missile fire. However, just as I reached the wood and the enemy neared, both my units fled the field without taking a hit or losing much fatigue!

2) My English were fighting Vikings, who had bravely hid in a wood since I was vastly superior (#1 reversed). My longbows kept up a constant hail of fire on them while my kerns attempted to draw units out into the open where my infantry and cavalry were waiting. I kept my 3 units of cav (1 RK w/high command Prince, 1 Hob, 1 MS) moving to try to get in a good charge. However, the RKs decided to flee because they were 'running away from the enemy.'

Grr! It makes no sense for this sort of thing to happen. I like to micromanage my units to get the best tactical advantage, but I can't because the game reads it as fleeing.

Anyone else bothered by this?

::end rant::

[TheViking]

Ofcourse they routed from the vikings http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

To b serious.
1. It happen to me to couple of times. I get around the enemy units and hit their back.
But what I forgot in my situations was the enemys missile units and reserve units hitting my back making my men rout.
2. I had great leaders too but the men was valour 0 anyway
3. The leader maybe had the V&V good runner or somthing like that.

Maybe u c any anser to ur question

------------------
There I see my father.
There I see my mother, my sisters and brothers.
There I see my line of ancestors back to the beginning.
They call on me and ask me to take my place with them in the halls of Valhalla where the brave may live forever.

[Goodridge]

1. Running after getting hit from the flanks or rear is fine. My units are running before they see ANY combat.
2. Royal Knights running before they see any combat? Grr!
3. He sure as hell did after that battle...



------------------
Kyle Goodridge

[pdoan8]

I am not an expert on tactic manuever and combat, but here are some of the things I always keep in mind:

1. When I need to put a general/Prince/King in charge of the army of a province, I will need to go back to check his V&V EVERY TURN. If he get any bad V&V which decrease the morale, I will remove him from the commanding position. I rather have a 1 command general with no bad V&V to command the army instead of a 5-6 command general with -9 morale V&V.

2. Units that have poor morale such as Kern, Helbardier, Militia Sergeant, Urban Militia, peasant, spearmen,... need special attention. These unit will need good support in order to keep on fighting. They will most likely to rout if there are high threat in their flank or rear. They will also suffer morale penalty when being shot at by missiles unit or siege engine/cannon. Also, they won't hang around if they are out number in the H-2-H fight (losing badly).

3. I do all manuevering away from the enemy position to avoid potential penalty where my troops have their flank or rear open while moving.

4. I prefer balance formation when I approach the enemy position that I can't see their line up from afar. All front line units stay where they are. Only rearrange the supporting line to fit with the enemy line up once I see it. Always approach with all units facing the enemy.

5. The commander always have the safest spot where the front and both of his flanks are covered (may be the rear too). However, he should be fairly close the main part of the army to provide some morale boost. He only commit in the fight when he is superior to his opponent or when his opponent is routing.

6. When I am greatly out number (without enough reserve) by the attacker, I prefer a fairly rigid and balance formation and I will chose a corner/edge of the map. I only chase the enemy in a short distance then retreat back to hold the formation.

7. If the enemy has siege engines, especially Trebuchet or Mangonel, I will approach at an angle because Trebuchet and Mangonel can't turn.

So, in your situation:

1. You should have deploy your troop in or very near to the wood in the first place. If the deployment zone is far away from the closest wood, I will rather defend the edge/corner. Halbardiers are insanely slow. They also have poor morale.

2. I can't tell and don't know for sure why your commanding Royal Knight routed, but there are a few posibilites.
- He has bad V&V that you didn't notice.
- You (your RK) are moving too close to the enemy and your flank or rear is open. Even though all of the enemy are engaging with your troops, the game might still give you morale penalty for leaving the flank/rear open.
- All of his troops were in "losing badly" state that you may not be aware of. This may put other non-elite troops close to wavering state and might also effect your elite Royal Knight if all others are wavering.
- Cavalry don't do well in the wood.

That's that I can think of.


[This message has been edited by pdoan8 (edited 10-01-2002).]

[GilJaysmith]

Your units seem to have felt your orders were tantamount to the Benny Hill manoeuvre. This was apparently a problem in Shogun; people would keep making small retreats to tire out the AI (or other MP players). So now, if you make too many backward moves with a unit, it has a negative effect on its morale.

If you're getting the morale warning to this effect, stop manoeuvring them for a while.

One rationalisation for this is that any manoeuvring with the enemy in view leaves the individual soldiers thinking that they won't even have the benefit of ragged formation and support from their neighbours in the line if the enemy charges in. They're more likely to think "our general's an idiot, I'm getting out of here" rather than "what micro-strokes of tactical and positional genius he's performing with us just now".

Gil ~ CA

[Inferno]

Something we (or at least I) didn't know! Nice one Gil.

Not that I ever used the "Benny Hill manoeuvre". Often. Without cause. On Tuesdays.

------------------
It's getting warm in here...that must be one hell of an INFERNO!

[Kraxis]

Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
However, just as I reached the wood and the enemy neared, both my units fled the field without taking a hit or losing much fatigue!
[/QUOTE]


It sounds to me like the wood was to your side, so you moved there and the enemy neared your men from the side. When the enemy was getting close about 2-3 unitwiths your men got a massive moralepenalty for having enemies in the flank.
And I would certainly also be scared if I saw a big enemy army to my right but I was told to stay put. I mean the men won't know that you actually will change their facing, they will like Gil said, think you are an idiot they don't want to die for.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[Puzz3D]

You can get as much as -12 morale penalty just from being outnumbered. The rout point is -16. Flanking penalty is much smaller, but in addition to that proximity penalty. Any morale penalties due to V&V's would add in as well. All in all, it's quite easy for a unit to get to -16 morale without fighting.

I've been playing my single player campaign with morale off which actually doesn't turn it off but adds +12 to morale. While I find +12 too much for multiplayer, it's giving me more challenging battles against th AI.

[Goodridge]

Maybe. My cav was out in the open, no where near the wood. And they were never actually attacked in the flank or anywhere - the enemy was simply marching towards my knights while my archers rained arrows on them.

Again, I could understand if they got hit from multiple sides at once. They should run in that case. What I saw was a group of RKs led by a high level prince flee from a group of rag tag Vikings that were being reduced to nothing by missile fire.

As for the Benny Hill thing - I think that is more likely. Game balance strikes again! Too bad - its kinda hard to simulate the Mongolian Feint when your troops read it as running away!

Good thoughts all, but I still don't see any justification. Some of the situations y'all bring up would make sense, but none of them apply here.

Oh well. I'll just have to be more careful.



------------------
Kyle Goodridge

[Puzz3D]

Goodridge,

The proximity and flanking penalties happen at a distance before the units engage. If MTW works like STW and WE/MI, then reducing the number of men in an enemy unit with ranged fire has no effect on the morale penalty that your unit is incuring from the presence of the enemy units.

[Kraxis]

Goodridge, are you sure your prince didn't have some really bad Vice? If he had Coward he could easily run when he get too close.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[FacelessClock]

You took to long to manuver and got beat. It happens.

Somebody call the Waaaahhhhbulance.

[longjohn2]

This sort of moving in and moving out again in the face of the enemy is quite unrealistic, especially for knights. You're just exploiting the game mechanics that give you instant control of your units. If there was no penalty for doing it, the game would be more about dancing than military tactics.
Of course it could be a valid tactic for light cavalry ( and infantry ) so you'll find these don't get the constant retreat penalty so long as they still have ammunition. They might of course fall foul of the other morale hazards mentioned by other posters. But then again, feigned flights could often turn into real ones.

[Red Inquisition]

Quote . But then again, feigned flights could often turn into real ones.

[/B][/QUOTE]


Yep, had this happen to me the other night against the ai. I was trying out the old fake route trick. Well the unit faked me out and just kept running. I was pretty pissed but had a good laugh when I sent that unit to it's death the next turn.

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif


------------------
***Metalpriest***
"Bringing the Faith of Metal to the boyband Heathins"
Yes, I know I cannot spell. I blame it all on the school system. It's not my fault, really it's not.

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
Is anyone else sick of the 'disheartended by constant retreat bs?' on several occassions I have had strong units that have not suffered damage or fatigue flee after I have maneuvered them around. They can be rallied, but immediatly flee again.

This is utterly ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed... it's highly lame.

You should even be able to charge, disengage, reposition, and recharge again. Hit-and-run tactics should be viable for cavalry without adversely impacting morale... It could always be a pre-trained tactic.

bif

[Spino]

I suppose you need crack troops and leaders to dance with the enemy like that. But historically speaking the reverse holds true as well. Too bad the game doesn't model the negative effects on morale when a well disciplined and drilled army executes clever maneuvers in full view of an unruly rabble!

At the battle of Gaugamela/Arbela Alexander maneuvered his army in full view of the Persians as he had his generals execute the deliberate plan of attack he laid out for them the night before. Eventually Darius was forced to play his hand when Alexander's maneuvers began to deprive Darius of the ground he prepared for his chariots and cavalry to use in his attack on Alexander's left flank. One has to assume that the bold and intricate maneuvers of a smaller force in full view of a much larger enemy must have had a much more profound effect on the scores of tired (sleep deprived) and lower quality Persian infantry than it did on Darius' Greek mercenaries, Immortal Bodyguard and his excellent cavalry (THE arm of the Persian empire at that time). If not fear then complete puzzlement as to what in blazes those crazy westerners were doing! No doubt many ignorant souls in Darius' army also wondered why their king was acting so timid in the face of such an outnumbered foe.

[Kraxis]

Hmm.. that is true.

If I saw the enemy execute some hard maneuvers in front of me and I knew my side could not do this, I would quite certainly begin to think a little about the quality of my side.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[Goodridge]

>>>You took to long to manuver and got beat. It happens.
Somebody call the Waaaahhhhbulance.>>>

If you don't have anything constructive to say, STFU. I'm tired of people like you ruining boards by trying to shut down intelligent discussion.

Puzz, I didn't know that. If that is true it would explain a lot. I think its lame, but at least I understand the mechanics now. Thanks!


>>You're just exploiting the game mechanics that give you instant control of your units. If there was no penalty for doing it, the game would be more about dancing than military tactics.>>

Long, thats untrue.

As Spino said, maneuver was used and was effective. Maeuver was the only place for tactical finese to show in this kind of warfare. Once you engage in combat control would be lost and it would devolve into a slug out. In order to win commanders had to maneuver to ensure that they had the advantage when combat begins.

What other tactics are there in this era of combat other than maneuver? None. Hitting the other guy with a club is not an aspect of tactics.

My RK didn't have any bad vices until after the battle (their retreat earned them an eager to retreat vice). If they had one I could understand them fleeing...but as it is I don't see the justification for the current system.

I guess Puzz answered my question. I just don't like the answer, but at least I understand what happened now. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif



------------------
Kyle Goodridge

[longjohn2]

The game does allow a fair amount of manoeuvre before it even thinks about penalising you, and if you attack, the retreat counter is reset, so there's plenty of scope for feint charges, or breaking off and charging in again. You can also manoeuvre as much as you like away from the enemy. However if you constantly feint, and never charge home, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the men start to wonder about their leader's cajones.

[FacelessClock]

Goodridge. You got beat. If your maneuvering your units so long that your guys actually get demoralized so badly that they run, maybe you should learn about deployment.

This does not mean that we should change the game.

Wahbulance, where are you?

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by longjohn2:
if you attack, the retreat counter is reset, so there's plenty of scope for feint charges, or breaking off and charging in again.[/QUOTE]

Oooh, I didn't know that sort of thing was tracked. Really neat!

So the best way to disengage cavalry to prep for another charge is the withdraw command?

(I've had trouble in the past (Shogun) trying to disengage and reattack...)

bif

[AgentBif]

Dude, he was right, you aren't contributing anything useful to the discussion, please go away.

bif

[hoof]

I always hit F1 at the beginning of the battle to ensure that a V&V didn't slip under my radar. I've had Generals that didn't have a negative vice listed against morale, yet my soldiers were all in the negatives during a battle. The F1 gives you all the stats on your troops (including morale), thus is excellent at gauging army morale. If your guys are all quaking in their boots, you know to adjust your tactics to compensate.

I had a situation where a particularly important battle was being fought with a good runner or worse as my general (forget which vice, I think it was -6 to morale). One of my cavalry units was maneuvered up-hill of a particular archer line, and I ordered them into a wedge charge assault. The scenario couldn't have been better (ok, maybe if they were peasants it could have been better). 20ft from slamming into the archers the white flag went up and my cavalry ran away!


Oh, btw, has anyone ever had a general rout off the field w/o gaining a vice? I've withdrawn from the battlefield w/o a major vice, but never had my general rout off the field w/o a "good runner" listed afterwards.

[BlackWatch McKenna]

From the old STW days:

I always call for a unit to "halt" before changing direction. It might be a Samurai Urban Myth, but the halt in between direction changes seems to keep the units focused.

//black

[BlackWatch McKenna]

In re: Routing Generals.

Playing HRE / Early / Expert. The Royal familiy are drunkards, so I developed a *** General from the farm system.

He made it to ****** and, because of his super winning streak, is +3 (***) on the attack. When he attacks, he is +9. Neat.

NOW HERE IS THE WEIRD THING

I sent him to deal with the Almoheds. He attacks, the enemy retreats. Next turn, they send four super stacks against him to the tune of at least 4:1 odds. He fights like the wind (only +5 because he is on defense) and gets thrown out of the province.

This happens not once, not twice, not thrice, but a combination of four times. He has lost four defensive battles - but NO VICE! He still has the Virtue of Super Attacker, though.

Go figure.

//Black



[This message has been edited by BlackWatch McKenna (edited 10-01-2002).]

[FacelessClock]

I am contributing my opinion, Agent Bif. My Opinion this....nothing is wrong. He lost, to bad, so sad, but no, nothing is wrong with this part of the game.

Happy? Or just wishing someone who doesn't agree with you would shut up?

[Yoko Kono]

hw wasnt saying he didnt agree with you just that there was no need for such a patronising reply thats all http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Goodridge]

>>>I am contributing my opinion, Agent Bif. My Opinion this....nothing is wrong. He lost, to bad, so sad, but no, nothing is wrong with this part of the game.
Happy? Or just wishing someone who doesn't agree with you would shut up?>>>

You aren't agreeing or disagreeing at all. You aren't taking part in the discussion. All you are doing is being an obnoxious punk. You need to make at least one intelligent point before you can really have an opinion. And 'you lost shutup' isn't an opinion.

Now, before this becomes a flame war, please remove yourself from the discussion. Unless you would like to grow a brain and take part in the conversation.



------------------
Kyle Goodridge

[Hakonarson]

Quote Originally posted by Spino:
I suppose you need crack troops and leaders to dance with the enemy like that. But historically speaking the reverse holds true as well. Too bad the game doesn't model the negative effects on morale when a well disciplined and drilled army executes clever maneuvers in full view of an unruly rabble!

At the battle of Gaugamela/Arbela Alexander maneuvered his army in full view of the Persians as he had his generals execute the deliberate plan of attack he laid out for them the night before. Eventually Darius was forced to play his hand when Alexander's maneuvers began to deprive Darius of the ground he prepared for his chariots and cavalry to use in his attack on Alexander's left flank. [/QUOTE]

That's not like any description of Guagamela that I've read!! The Persians had no trouble with room to manouvre - they'd flattened the battlefield to make it a nice plce to play on the day!! lol

however their attack on Alex's left was held by his cavalry there, and their reaction to his attack on the Right was cerated a gap for Alex to exploit - he effectively created a flank in the centre of a larger army then charged into it with his Companions. Then Darius had a minor failure of nerve and fled (V&V - cautious/coward!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif), and the rest of the army lost heart!!

The Persians were nowhere near defeated when Darius left, but Alex had successfully "played the man" - ie he'd worked on Darius' personal fears. whether this was deliberate or not I don't know.

Back to the original problem - welcome to the real world!

There are examples of whole armies routing because FRIENDLY reinforcments had arrived to their rear and were misidentified, or because troops from one wing were withdrawn to be transfered to the otehr and someone thought they weer retreating and paniced.

Applying today's standards of troops behaviour, morale and training to the ancients is indulging in fantasy.

They were uneducated, superstitious, paranoid, selfish and neurotic - and that was the elite!!

Panic was (and still is) highly contagous.

The reason moden armies concentrate on C^3 so much is that it takes a HELL of a lot of attention to get men to enter battle where there's a good chance they will be killed.

It was teh same then - oh sure ther eweer some veterans who may have been keen, but that was probably because they'd been in a lot of one-sided massacres where they stood little chance of actually being hurt and had built up some sort of fantasy that they were invincible!

"Veterans" of constant defeats weer invariably very poor troops - it wasn't teh exposure to combat that made veterans good, it was the level of self belief they had in themselves and their commanders, and that's best engendered by winning a lot!!

So there you are - an ignorant, dirty, starving professional soldier. Outnumbered a zillion to one and you know it. you haven't ben paid for a few months, and you are sick and have fleas.

If you get caught you can expect to die horribly from a spear or sword, or perhaps slowly of peritonitis (not that you know what that is) from a stomach wound.

Or you can run away (assuming there is somewhere to run too)

The enemy is approaching...what's your choice?? Don't leave it too late because if you run when they're close they'll probably catch you..........



[This message has been edited by Hakonarson (edited 10-02-2002).]

[FacelessClock]

Oh yes, I forgot how offended everyone go if I didn't say "lol huggles" at the end of my post.

So let me go more in depth.

First off, manuvering does not in any way cause you to get the "disheartended by constant retreat"

Second off, it would not cause a good unit to break.

What were you expecting. Halbs against a byz army? Halbs are low moral to begin with. An army that big would was no doubt getting them worried about flanks. There was no way you could win that, and your troops knew that. So they ran.

I call shenanigans on your second case. I have played alot of battles. This has never happened. It was either a exception, or something was going on that you did not notice.

I move my men around all the time. But never have I encountered this. There is no proof of a problem beyond your two scenarios. In the first, the reason your men routed was pretty obvious. In the second, it was likely a exception, glitch, or something you didn't notice. 1 case != a bug or a problem.

Do I qualify as taking place in the discussion yet?

[Goodridge]

Hey Clock, just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it can't happen. You haven't seen me kick your dumbass, you ridiculous brat, but it could and would happen.

Achem. Now, back to being civil...



------------------
Kyle Goodridge

[FacelessClock]

Just because you thought you saw something happen once doesn't mean it did.

Or am I supposed to just take your word for it?

Ha, I think not.

By the way, while we're throwing logic and common sense out the window, a gnome said you are wrong and, in additon, that you should commit suicide.

[Goodridge]

>>>Or am I supposed to just take your word for it?>>.

No, genius, you can take the word of every other person that has contributed to this thread with similar stories and explanations. Maybe if you took the time to read the posts instead of just talking out of your ass you would have seen what we have been talking about.

Gnomes? Thats just sad.

Ok, now I'm done with this bs. Feel free to comment further kid, if you need to get the last word in or whatever would make your day. I'm finished with this waste of time and space.



------------------
Kyle Goodridge

[FacelessClock]

....wahmbulance.

And thats the last word.

[FacelessClock]

Also, after a review of this thread......did anyone have similar stories?

[anymapkoku]

I had a bad experience with the constant retreat in multiplayer too. I can understand it in general but if you've clearly won the game and there's no way you can lose in s straight up fight, are in trees with chiv sergeants and fmaa vs cavarly and enemy spearmen, and outnumber/out valor them, and have routed them previously, I don't see why my guys should get a constant retreat penalty just because I move around a bit waiting for him to attack me in my trees which should kill his cav+make his spears(1 spearmen) ineffective.(i lost and routed.)
If it were in the game for some sor tof realism purposes then that's one thing, but if CA is just putting it in to give the ai a break then in certain situations(you've beat the other guy) I don't think it should affect multiplayer.
--reaverlisk

[hrvojej]

If you do successful skirmishes on the ai ranks while ai is a defender, meaning it will stand its ground for the most part, you can provoke the same thing, as their morale descriptions in replays show. So, attacking using e.g. horse archers, pulling back when the enemy moves forward, and repeating the manouver will disenhearten them. You are not suffering penalty because the HA still have ammo, and they do. As the Turks I was able to do this a couple of times with great success, especially when you have several HA units, so the enemy gets other penalties as well. So yes, it's there.
Ah, can't wait for the patch since it'll fix the replays....... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[jas]

Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
There are examples of whole armies routing because FRIENDLY reinforcments had arrived to their rear and were misidentified, or because troops from one wing were withdrawn to be transfered to the otehr and someone thought they weer retreating and paniced.

Applying today's standards of troops behaviour, morale and training to the ancients is indulging in fantasy.
[/QUOTE]

Fantastic description on tv last week of one of the Lancastrian/Yorkist battles fought near Barnet. The attacking side (I think the Yorkists', but not entirely sure) completely smashed the Lancastrians' left wing and drove them back several hundred metres into a nearby village and killed them all. Then (as you do) they fell to looting the village for a while. Eventually their commander rallied them and advanced back towards the battle, coming from behind the Lancastrians, who were still locked in battle with rest of the Yorkist troops. Ideal situation you would think, time to make a sandwich, but no. In the mist they mistook their own side for the Lancs and attacked them, falling on their flank. All the rest of the Yorkists however DID recognize them and immediately started crying 'Treason!'. Before the mess could be sorted out they all bottled it and ran off, leaving the chewed-up and rather surprised Lancs in possession of the field. Ah, we can laugh about it now ..

[AgentBif]

Quote Originally posted by FacelessClock:
Just because you thought you saw something happen once doesn't mean it did.

Or am I supposed to just take your word for it?

Ha, I think not.
[/QUOTE]

Dude, you are one obnoxious fool...

Go back and read longjohn's posts... He acknowledges that this is a function of the code. Personally, I have not run into the problem in MTW yet (only been playing for 2 days now), but it was a real annoyance for me in Shogun.

Since then I have learned to just suck it up if one of my units gets in a bad position and I just charge them all the way in now and hope for the best. It's habit for me now, and it sometimes costs a lot of pain. That's unfortunate, because one of the most important features of cavalry is their maneuver and they should be able to feint a reasonably often in order to disorganize the enemy and induce an opportunity.

It sounds like they have accounted for disengages now in the code though... My guess is Goodridge was just being unrealistically hyperactive with the maneuver adjustments ;^)

bif

[Goodridge]

>>>My guess is Goodridge was just being unrealistically hyperactive with the maneuver adjustments ;^)>>>

Lol

You're probably right. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif



------------------
Kyle Goodridge

[hoof]

BlackWatch McKenna, you're very very lucky your general didn't get a vice.

I'm playing the Byzantines, and the Almohads launched an abortive attack into Egypt (which I held) to start a war. This time I go into containment mode (where I put a large army in his only ways into my territory). I own the seas, but he keeps producting ships from a border province, so I decide to attack to shut down the shipyard.

On the turn before the attack, he has like 300 men in the province, while I'm moving in about 1,500 men led by a 6-star general. Lo and behold when the pre-battle screen shows up it says the defenders now have about 4,500 men (I curse my intelligence agency for not seeing them working their way across north africa)! So I call off the attack. Sure enough, "hesitant (-2 morale)" comes up on the vices list.

A few turns later he's moved most of the army to a province next to the border province. This time I've beefed up my army and head in with about 2,000 vs his 500. Sure enough, when it comes time for the battle, it's 2,000 vs 4,500 again. This time I decide to give it a go to attempt to avoid a worse vice.

So I fight a desert battle, outnumbered worse than 2:1, with half my army being heavily armored (might as well have told those units to retreat at the start. Thus the situation is pretty grim. My general and his heroic army succeed in routing off over a thousand men, and kill 2,200, and very nearly wins the battle before finally being overwhelmed. I try like heck to keep the general from routing, throwing unit after unit as sacrificial roadblocks while desparately pulling my general out. Up goes the white flag, and he runs anyway. Sure enough, after the battle, a "good runner (-3 morale)".

Here is the general that had 150 kills personally for his unit, had commanded an army in very unfavorable conditions to kill 2,200 men and rout off all but about 300-400 of the original 4,500, and because of the 1-strike-your out policy on running/retreating he's now pulling rear-province garrison duty (no way I'm using him for front-line duty with -5 total morale modifier).

Thus ended a career climbing up from a zero-command grunt to one of my best 6-star generals (the stars being earned over many many campaigns).

[This message has been edited by hoof (edited 10-02-2002).]

[Kraxis]

Yeah you are right hoof...

It seems a general only has to think about retreating before he gets a Vice...

Going three in a row is something really increadible.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[hoof]

The ironic thing is that I don't mind all that much that my general got those vices. After all, if a US general had retreated or routed during the Iraqi war, I'd think he'd have difficulty with the morale of men under his command as well http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

But I am concerned that the AI doesn't take the threat of vices into account when it chooses what to do once committed to an attack (or when invaded). The AI seems more than willing to retreat when outnumbered, call off attacks, or withdraw from combat once on the field. Yet this almost always hurts his general's fighting ability. More than once have I trashed huge enemy armies simply because the general in charge was forced to retreat by the AI a few times in previous battles. I'd prefer it if the *enemy* generals didn't get negative morale vices as often as they did. It was funny the first time watching superior numbers of men forming up in front of my army only to run away after I looked at them funny, but it's getting really old.

One tactic that you can use to take advantage of this is the Sherman maneuver. Build a huge stack of units and move them through the enemy's countryside. Not only does this trash his economy as you tear up the landscape, but *every* general that gets out of the way is likely to get a negative morale vice, making it that much easier to conquer that faction's lands when you do decide to conquer his lands for real.

Does anyone know if retreating into the castle gives the general a vice?

[Kraxis]

Well I think it much worse how the AI neglects generals...

I can't tell how many times I have seen a lousy king have perhaps three quite able heirs under him, as well as one or two good generals (Rank 4 at least), while the other armies in the other provinces simply have to make do with govenors and Rank 2 generals...

Of course it doesn't help that the AI don't actually try to hold off Vices.
It is sad to see when the AI finally get a high ranking general into battle, he often has a very bad Vice...

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[moldndecay]

I agree with the wasting of generals by the AI. Ive started 2 turk campaigns and each time the Byz had a 6 star general to start with. And what did they do with him, let him rot alone in Treb. Never moved him, just let him sit. So of course as the years go by he picks up vices and when I attack he retreats to his keep to be bottled up and killed. Not good use at all.

[Themicles]

Well, I've only seem to had this trouble with cavalry units personally. I was outnumbered and outclassed with only 28 Urban Militia against a bunch of French Royal Knights, including their king. I fell back through a wooded area, and waited for them in a corner wooded area. I closed formation and assaulted them as they entered the woods. Between the rain and the wooded area, I wiped the floor with them, and the French king ran like a coward!

I fell back three times, and didn't have a single morale issue with these Urban militia, but I have had morale issues doing the same thing with Royal and Feudal Knights.

[andrewt]

It happened to me twice. Once was because of stupid pathfinding in two-bridge battles. I commanded my feudal knights to cross the other bridge by clicking on the end of that other bridge but they wanted to cross the bridge where the fighting was going on before going to the other bridge. I tried making them move away but they routed because of constant withdrawals. Damn idiots made the morale of my entire army drop.

The next was when I had lots of crossbowmen and the enemy had Swiss armored pikemen. The pikemen were chasing my king and I was moving him back while my crossbowmen were firing. I wanted him to move around until my flankers were in place to pincer attack the pikemen before charging my king once they have thinned. The king ran after a while because of constant retreat.