Draw during battle

I didn't advocate the cav charging the spears. Do you do that in real life? Obviously not.

There are two courses of action:
1. Cav withdraw by themselves, preserving force for the next fight.
2. Cav remains and it is the burden of the spears to prove they should win the battle. If spears think they couldn't catch cav, then withdraw (I am in the opinion that it is possible to make cav rout by infantry if the numbers are unequal).

Problem with allowing a tie: many people will assert they have a right to a tie and will demand a tie while the opposite army was simply resting and will attack after they catch their breath.

I am not quite sure honor is determined by winning a battle. Winning a battle is determined skills, and yes, in such battle it is an equal skill and luck. Skill is not equalling honor. You should be ashamed you couldn't beat the other guy :) If you are a Mongol general and came back without a victory, better prepared for a good spanking, draw or loss (obviously aiming at Orda :p ) :) :) (actually Mongol warriors were allowed to withdraw and withdraw then came back again with more force were Mongol tactics).

To me, honor was in "do I drag out this battle for an extra 15 minutes just to have a win or should I not waste my precious time and withdraw and fight another fight?"

Option #1 was what I would do if I were having cav. Option #2 was what I would do if I were having spears.

Oh, forgot, this is no longer the age of chivalry nor samurai. All people want was a petty victory and a half-victory.

Annie
ps.: I must clarify here, if both sides agree it is a tie in the same spirit as described above, then double honors to all. But what I want to avoid was the automatic tie, or newbies claiming a tie when in fact it was not.

Hello AnnieP,
First of all, how are you? I hope you are well.
Even a Mongol general would not simply charge spears with his cav, as you so rightly pointed out. You would not do that during the battle so why would anyone expect you to do this at the end? In my first reply on this topic, I explained what happened in my first RTW battle. I will elaborate......
First stage of engagement saw my archers gain ascendancy over the WRE archers and slingers. My HA enveloped to harass and WRE cav charge against my archers were met by my cataphracts. The WRE cohorts overcame the cataphracts but were reduced significantly by HA arrows. In testudo, they prevented too many losses but they still died when attacked from the rear. With five units of HA with minimal losses plus my general, an assault on the remaining cohorts would not be wise. Each time I attacked with arrows, the cohorts went into testudo.
The WRE were reduced but they are still units with good discipline and morale. However, I could have walked around the map all night avoiding them. My opponent was somebody who could also see this was a stalemate situation and we both agreed. He was not going to pursue my cav and I was not going to commit suicide by charging him.
Obviously things have changed with TW MP these days

....Orda

If you cannot win a battle so are just continually withdrawing with no intention of ever fighting, surely it is more honourable to just admit defeat?

If you have trouble charging your cav into a lost battle, and their is no hope of anything that may come up making you win, maybe you should just admit defeat.. Or withdraw your cav clicking 'W'.

Lets assume that one player would only pick horse archers and the other only phalanxes. The only way of defeating the phalanxes is by shooting arrows or by charging in their rear. The former probably fails and the latter too if the phalanxes are put in a box. The phalanxes have no hope of cathing the horse archers.

Now you could say that neither player can win, so it's a draw. However IMO this is not the reason why it should be considered a draw. A player with an army that is so one-sided in tactics knows beforehand what the result will be when facing certain armies.

In the case of the phalanx army: it's only objective versus a horse army could be to survive the arrow storms and protect its flanks and rear.
The horse archer army's objective would be to inflict as many casualities as possible.
Neither side can realistically have much hope of winning with the selected forces and as such it can only be considered a draw as both armies can achieve their (limited) objectives. These kind of battles are doomed to boring gameplay from the start.

In all other cases it's the responsibility of the attacker to withdraw when a stalemate has been reached as he cannot achieve his objective of being victorious over the defenders. If there is no attacker then it should be considered a draw as both sides fail to attack succesfully.

Quote:

---

In all other cases it's the responsibility of the attacker to withdraw when a stalemate has been reached as he cannot achieve his objective of being victorious over the defenders. If there is no attacker then it should be considered a draw as both sides fail to attack succesfully.

---

agreed. One of the (minor) problems RTW MP brought that MTW did not is the lack of a clear attacker and defender. Even if the host sets an attacker/defender the icon is so small it's hard to notice (esp for noobs). So the result is no one HAS to attack. If there is an attacker set, then like DJ says, he should attack until his entire army is dead. If you chose to pick tons of HA, but fail to kill the defender before your arrows run out then you must charge, even if that means your defeat. It's only a matter of good sportsmanship.
If you have one horseman left and the enemy has 1000 infantrymen, would you call that a draw just because he can't catch you ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [cF]Adherbal

If you have one horseman left and the enemy has 1000 infantrymen, would you call that a draw just because he can't catch you ?

---

Of course not. And in the previous example DK mentioned, I think it's the HA's player that should retreat (Lose) or charge (Lose too). It is like a hidden code that when you have the HA, you are the attacker, and when you have the phalanx, you're the defender and so on..

Quote:

---

It is like a hidden code that when you have the HA, you are the attacker, and when you have the phalanx, you're the defender and so on..

---

Nonsense... in my opinion :grin:

If the defender takes an all horse archer army, then like I said the game is doomed to be boring. Movement is the defense of the horse archer. Phalanxes cannot touch horse archers because of their speed, and horse archers cannot touch phalanxes because of their spears. Saying that horse archers must charge would be like saying that phalanxes may not use their spears.

The result is a stalemate. And stalemates are not ended by one side charging in regardless, they end with the attacker withdrawing, or if there is no attacker, both sides withdrawing. That is the "hidden code". Unless players just want to have fun and see how one side charges to its doom.

Hmm draw?

March towards enemy, shoot at enemy, draw swords and charge enemy. Yep thats the only draw I know about ~;p


CBR

And now is see guys that you have never fought into real steppe :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke John

Nonsense... in my opinion :grin:

If the defender takes an all horse archer army, then like I said the game is doomed to be boring. Movement is the defense of the horse archer. Phalanxes cannot touch horse archers because of their speed, and horse archers cannot touch phalanxes because of their spears. Saying that horse archers must charge would be like saying that phalanxes may not use their spears.

The result is a stalemate. And stalemates are not ended by one side charging in regardless, they end with the attacker withdrawing, or if there is no attacker, both sides withdrawing. That is the "hidden code". Unless players just want to have fun and see how one side charges to its doom.

---

Wrong, HA's weapon is arrows, they don't kill through moving. And so, when their arrows are depleted, they'd be considered 'took their chance' and charge the phalanx unit. Following your example, if 2 balanced armies are taken, and only a 1 man HA is left on 1 side and all infantry on the other, it would be a draw, even though the infantry side had 6 urbans, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke John

Movement is the defense of the horse archer.

---

Quote:

---

Following your example, if 2 balanced armies are taken, and only a 1 man HA is left on 1 side and all infantry on the other, it would be a draw, even though the infantry side had 6 urbans, right?

---

With the current TW games, yes.

Defence doesn't kill, so you shouldn't 'keep' using it..

Anyway, if that's what you think, then I have one word to describe it: Silly.

;)

I remain with my point that the player should not admit defeat because of the horse archer versus infantry issues. However in your example there is a different thing at hand and that is a force being reduced to practically nothing. Of course the player (at least I) should admit defeat in that case.

What's the force in a depleted HA?

What is your point?

There is no real point....and in the battle I described there was no attacker and defender.
This is all down to personal opinion, the people you play, your interpretation of the game and so on.
We both agreed that it was stalemate so to be honest I really could care less about any other opinion since it was OUR decision

........Orda

Orda, we aren't discussing YOUR decision, we're discussing the topic.

@DK: Just take it this way. If you are running endlessly without daring to fight, why shouldn't it be called a defeat?

Why Keep running Away,with or Withotu Arrows,and Think you going to win??

DJ, so according to you a player that buys 20 cav units while the enemy has none (either bought none or lost all) can never be defeated ? because all he has to do is avoid contact. HA or normal cav, that makes no difference. Both units can keep running away from the enemy. I think that's nonsense. If you HA uses up all his arrows he becomes a light cav unit that is supposed to be used to charge. If you refuse to do that just because you know you'll lose then you shouldn't play MP games. If just having the ability to withdraw a unit from battle means you call it a draw then every battle would be a draw.

HA are light cav with arrows. Just because in reality they wouldn't charge to their death doesn't mean they shouldn't in a competitive MP game. If they're the only thing you got left, anf they can't kill their opponents then you either admit defeat (consider that as withdrawing) or you charge and die.

Well put, Adherbal.

You are right, Adherbal. But my main issue with which I struggle is how an all horse archer army should admit defeat when facing an all phalanx army. While both players are equally responsible for choosing an army that they know will have difficulties attacking certain armies.

If the phalanx guy had 10 cav units, it'd be the same.. The cav would be killed first, and then their will be the phalanx left against the almost depleted HA..

OK and how about enemy who is taking only phalanx and prepare one big circle. Why should I attack him. Into MP games both players must going to win, not just waiting on opponent.
Imagine that in bi horse archers who don't fight with phalanxe only run make sence - they are getting tired 10 times slower than phalanx. And exhausted phalanx is..... weak phalanx with weak morale.
And you demand simply charging on opponent like idiot. If enemy want win with me, he should take cav and catch me. No one forced him to take only inf and prepare phalanx circle. Ha are simply problem for campers who never attack, only wait on opponent. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

Orda, we aren't discussing YOUR decision, we're discussing the topic.

---

It seems to me you discussed it quite a bit.
RTW has been a messed up game since its release with plenty of rules added to try to overcome the mess.
Duke John has posed a question that still has not been answered. Let's forget phalanxes, from what I've read here it seems that all anyone has to do is take strong infantry because it is expected that anyone with cav has to charge infantry. That is simply crazy. We could just as easily demand that infantry must chase cav and that is crazy too.
If this is what is expected in MP, maybe it should be included with all the other rules

......Orda

An infantry would happily chase a cav, but that won't end the battle. While if a cav unit charges an infantry, that would end it. I'm not demanding anyone to do anything, but consider HA disposable units, which when you delete their arrows, you just withdraw them, or if you want to masscarce them (Because they will dir from anything, even a charge in the rear), keep them in battle and use them, and not just flee with them.

I remember in one of my games, I was ERE and my enemy Celts. I had 10 cohorts (Different kinds), 4 spearmen and 6 archers, while the enemy had 6 super-upgraded slingers, 6 infantry, 6 cav and 2 chariots. I killed off all his Slingers, and all his infantry, and all his cav, and 1 of his chariots, and had 3/4 of my army left. Now, following you'r example, I'd need to keep chasing that 1 chariot, and since he is going to just flee, it will be considered a draw rather than a win.. I don't find that fair, mind you. And I consider it a silly and non-sportmanship act, and I'd rather not play such people who adapt this idea (No offence meant to ANY of you).

Quote:

---

An infantry would happily chase a cav, but that won't end the battle.

---

Turning the back of the infantry towards the cavalry would. Stupid? Of course, but so is charging light cavalry into a phalanx.

Note that I am talking about taking a force that cannot effectively attack cavalry from the start. I am not talking about 2 balanced forces with one side losing all its cavalry and the other infantry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by x-dANGEr

Now, following you'r example, I'd need to keep chasing that 1 chariot, and since he is going to just flee, it will be considered a draw rather than a win..

---

This is nothing like the example I gave

......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NihilisticCow

If you cannot win a battle so are just continually withdrawing with no intention of ever fighting, surely it is more honourable to just admit defeat?

---

Maybe we didn't agree on terminology. Withdraw here means "withdraw from battlefield", as in Ctrl-A Ctrl-O or click on the white flag. That is different than running around in the battlefield.

Annie

@DK: What is your point? If it is: "None of a all phalanx army and all HA army should win, because they both picked armies that don't deserve to", I agree.

@Orda: Am sure it isn't.. ?!

@LadyAnn: Running around the battlefield with no intention to attack is called?