I Quick Question&A Comment

[Cid]

Is there any way to order troops to conduct a fighting withdrawal rather than merely rout or ctrl.W which usually turns into the same thing? I can't find one but I've learned never to take anything for granted with this game. If there's not there oughta be. It's a pretty universal/basic manuever which anything other than an armed mob should be able to perform.

I've been playing a lot and have enjoyed and admired this game more than any that I can think of. It's potential for expansion is remarkable IMHO but Diplomacy is it's Chinless Wonder It's the 1 aspect of the game that the developers should be ashamed of and the more one plays the more oppressive it becomes.It's decisions are not based upon history or any type of logic as human beings understand the term. I've tried every way of retaining allies but it's impossible. You can beat a fellow Catholic Faction down to 1 Province after being attacked by THEM and rarely if ever will they accept a ceasefire even if being attacked by a Muslim faction.If there were a V/V of Suicidal Maniac possesed by a faction leader I could accept this otherwise it's just bushleague.

Another delightful feature which results in useless and endless effort is that whenever you begin to do well ALL of your friends and neighbors hate your guts, will not marry your ugly daughters, leaving them mopeing around the castle and being catty, and refuse to let theirs marry you. This effectively takes the most important V/V aspect out of the players hands and leads innevitably to drooling, chinless, webfooted heirs.

The game is so well done in other respects that I can't help thinking that the devs were up against a release deadline (something with which I'm familiar)and just said to hell with it just release it as is.

CA, if you read this, all of the above seems easy to fix. The following would be enough for me-
1\ A way to cultivate and retain allies especially natural allies.
2\More diplomatic interaction between factions, ie sending funds, joint attacks, being able to pass through allied territory unmolested without Crusading etc.Both AOE & AOK have you beat hands down in this respect and neither game approaches MTW.
3\Certain events such as a Muslim invasion that would increase the probability of Christian factions putting aside their squabbles and banding together.The same would go for Muslims. There is no way that Western Europe would have allowed the Turks for example to overun Christendom without drawing a line somewhere.

I know none of this is new but I think that it's such a glaring and unnecessary weakness that it can't be stated often enough.

Rant over

[Niccolomachiavelli]

I agree with the diplomacy, it certainly limits a wonderful game. I agree even more so with the complaint that everyone turns against you when you do well. Its not as if this is an imaginary complaint, the game is coded that way. Its ridiculous that my thriving trade empire should be completely trashed because my allies for 200 years suddenly attack my ships me because I have one province too many. Obviously the mechanism is there to make the game more challenging, but I find it simply makes the game ludicrous. I have yet to beat a single full campaign simply because when I get past that 60% mark, everyone in the world decides they hate me and every territory I've conquered within the past 20 years decides that revolting for the next 40 years would be more advantageous. The result is stagnation, and for the most part, bankruptcy. I give up and start again. Obviously I'm not that great of a player, but I am sure there are others out there who share my sentiment. It would simply be funner if the other players continued to interact with you in more or less the same way, or at the very least, change the dynamic so they arent quite so hostile when you become powerful. If they've been allied with you for sufficiently long enough, shouldnt that count for something?

[Dionysus9]

Fighting withdrawals are not as easy to perform in the field as you might expect. You say anything but a mob should be able to conduct a fighting withdrawal, but history does not support your statement.

The vast majority of defeats over history resulted in routs, not fighting withdrawals. In the context of MTW, I don't think you can expect your troops to "know how to conduct a fighting withdrawal on thier own." When do they stop to fire at the enemy? Who stays back to guard the rear and fight while others retreat? Which units should be engaged and which should be avoided? Answering these questions are fundamental to executing a fighting withdrawal-- these are questions to be answered by the general, not by a unit of peasants or spears or archers.

So, I think, it is how it should be-- if a fighting withdrawal is so easy to perform, then why dont you conduct it yourself? You will see it is not easy with a determined enemy (or 2) on your heels.

IMHO it is the height of skill to hold off 2 attackers whith ranged fire while you edge off the back of the map. I don't think you should be able to just click a key that does it for you. Work at it-- you will become a better player.

As for diplomacy, I agree. I basically play MP though, so it is not a big concern.

[zipnar]

at the battle of hastings, Harold conducted somewhat of a fighting withdraw. but once he got shot, the army was unable to continue doing it and William the Bastard won the day and got a new title.

[Dionysus9]

Quote[/b] (zipnar @ Nov. 12 2002,12:33)]at the battle of hastings, Harold conducted somewhat of a fighting withdraw. but once he got shot, the army was unable to continue doing it and William the Bastard won the day and got a new title.

Ahhh, thank you Zipnar, thats exactly the type of historical example I was looking for.

[solypsist]

I agree with the part about natural allies

[Cid]

Maybe Fighting Withdrawal was the wrong term- Giving Ground would have been better--ie, fall back slowly and not getting slaughtered or routed. Hannibal did that with his center at Cannae and drew the Romans into a trap. The troops that did it (many of them Gauls I believe)were hardly disiplined professionals. I thought that it would be a good option for outnumbered defenders.

As to #$%&*#^ Diplomacy- I don't think that I've played a single game as the English where it didn't begin to happen as soon as I got the upper hand with the French.

Once again, it's just too good a game for the devs to ignore it's 1 subpar, universally hated, probably easily fixed aspect...BY GOD

Well, back to my idiot heirs who are no doubt observing barnyard animals in a less than chaste way.

[Dionysus9]

As for the "Give Ground" command, you can do that fairly easily by grouping the center of your army (G key) and then holding ALT and left clicking away from the enemy.

I know the technique that you are talking about and it is also harder to use than I first thought. Of course, it is not difficult ordering the troops to fall back, thats the easy part. The problem is that when you do that you are presenting two weak flanks to the enemy (ZZ):

ZZ ZZ
X X
XXXXXXX

If the enemy is stupid enough to follow your center then you have him. Close your flanks (ZZ's) around him and he is surrounded like at Cannae. But if he doesnt follow your center you are in trouble. Now he can either blast he crap out of your forward ZZ's with ranged fire, or he can swarm one of them and force it to rout (with the rest of your army taking morale penalties and your plan backfiring). If you let him maneuver to a flank then you are in even more trouble (enemy is OO's):
O O O O
O
O O
ZZ ZZ O
X X O
XXXXXXX O

It's a risky tactic, but as Hannibal proved-- it can work. It seems to work best against over-eager chargers.

[insolent1]

I have finished 2 camapigns as the Polish on GA expert one starting in early & the other in high period. In both of the campaigns I had one steadfast ally who never ever attacked me even when I left completely undefended borders for long periods of time. The Hungarians became quite large in the early campaign they where at war with everyone & where excommunicated but they never attacked me. I always remained allied to them & they always choose me over any other faction, I was playing GA & only had a small empire. I even decided not to take Hungary(part of polish GA) from them as they had been nothin but nice to me

[cart6566]

I have considered diplomacy as it stands in the game and have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, a more "rationally" behaving AI adds to the realism and immersion value of the game, while in some cases making it too easy for the thinking human to take advantage of AI predictability. On the other hand, clearly one of the funnest parts of the game are the real-time battles and I appreciate the fact that I can play a perfectionist/defensive/GA game and still get to fight the fights because sooner or later one or more AI factions will attack.

With that said, it seems clear that no future patch will really address problems with the AI and diplomacy for a variety of reasons not relevant to this thread. Accordingly, I am in favor of giving players a campaign/AI editing tool in an expansion that lets players decide how various AI factions will behave, script events and AI actions, etc. You can fiddle with the AI behavior as things are, but it is kind of a pain, and it AI factions remain unpredictable due to the random factor present in almost all AI decision making. Much room for improvement on the AI/diplomacy, but give players the tools to set up challenging, immersive, realistic campaigns to really let this game live up to its potential.

[Grifman]

Quote[/b] (zipnar @ Nov. 12 2002,12:33)]at the battle of hastings, Harold conducted somewhat of a fighting withdraw. but once he got shot, the army was unable to continue doing it and William the Bastard won the day and got a new title.

Harold never withdrew at Hastings and didn't try. He and his men died where they stood, on the hilltop.

Grifman

[Cid]

Does the Alt.left click command work while troops are engaged or is it more of a pre engagement positioning command? For example, if I had 3 groups of spearmen actually engaged and I used this command, would they take a morale hit, attempt to turn their backs to reach the designated area etc. Of course I can try this out in a custom battle without bothering everyone.

As to DIPLOMACY--It's not so much that an ally might suddenly attack you (trust but verify), it's the incoherent reasons for doing so, not accepting cease fires when being destroyed etc. I also think that if Muslims are marching on Rome or Christians on Antioch, the intra religious petty squabbles should have a much greater chance of being put aside as they most certainly would have been historically.I think Carts got it right on the money about an editor.

THE most annoying aspect is the marriage factor which the more I think about it was probably MISGUIDEDLY programmed into the game intentionaly. Right now I've got all of France except Tolouse, Genoa and a Crusade marching on Almo held Castile who are beating the stuffings out of the Aragonese. Nevertheless, NO ONE will marry into the family. My faction's turning into the Adams Family and there's nothing I can do about it.

Again, I think that this renders a large chunk of the V/V aspect of the game meaningless and just flat out aggravating as hell.

Thanks for the replys by the way.

[Dionysus9]

Quote[/b] (Cid @ Nov. 12 2002,18:49)]Does the Alt.left click command work while troops are engaged or is it more of a pre engagement positioning command? For example, if I had 3 groups of spearmen actually engaged and I used this command, would they take a morale hit, attempt to turn their backs to reach the designated area etc. . . . "

First, a correction: you don't have to use the "G" grouping command before an alt-left click, only before an alt-right click [to change the facing of the group as a formation instead of as individual units--very useful] to the extent I implied otherwise above I mis-spoke). You can use the alt-left click command by just selecting the units.

Second, good question, here is my answer:

Issuing commands to an engaged unit is normally quite risky because they almost always have to break formation to follow the order, and that is dangerous (they stop fighting to move, may present their rear, and take morale hits for being disordered).

I believe, technically, it will work for troops that are engaged. However, in practice, you would [almost] never issue such a command. Let me tell you why. First, you are correct, you would take a morale hit as soon as you turn your back. You also take a morale hit as your formation breaks up to make the about-face. Then you take defense penalties because you are getting attacked from the back [try it and see your casualties sky-rocket] The practical effect of all these factors is almost always an immediate rout. Of course, fast Cavalry is good at disengaging from infantry. If you are trying to disengage with a faster unit (or a unit with high valor/morale) you have a good chance of pulling it off--use a alt-left double-click to be safe. (or alt-left click followed by CTRL-R).

Otherwise I would suggest ordering a rout--it works much better than a withdrwal or disengage order. Routing units run directly away from the enemy as fast as possible and dont give your units rout penalties (some exceptions, but generally no penalties to your troops). Once they get a safe distance away they are easier to rally than if they had routed on their own. Sometimes you can trick the enemy by quickly rallying and slamming him before he realizes it was a trick. My cav uses this trick against archers all the time to great effect.

So, to answer-- its normally a pre-engagement movement order. But..hmm....I wonder if a Cannae type tactic might work by routing the front-center before the enemy actually engages. Heh, they would think they had routed you and would naturally follow, expecting a chain rout of your wings. Your wings which arent getting hit with rout penalties will be fine....your center will rally fast because no casualties... wow, this might be the best way to make a Cannae tactic work...I will experiment. Still very very tricky, but if it was practiced enough I bet it would work.

[Olaf the Unsure]

I'm sure the tendency of the AI to gang up on you once you reach as certain size is a conscious design decision and intended to make the game more challenging. Every game of conquest suffers from the problem of the late-game steamroller effect, where the player reaches a certain critical mass of provinces and income and becomes unstoppable. Europa-Universalis deals with the problem through a similar, though somewhat more refined, method -- the bigger you get, the more everyone else is willing to gang up to stop you.

Although it seems somewhat irrational, I think it actually makes good sense -- and is historically accurate -- albeit abstracted. Rulers during this period, as always, were very fearful of anyone who grew too powerful. So was the Church. It makes perfect sense to me that other princes -- even those who have been your allies -- would be reluctant to just sit back and do nothing and let you conquer half the known world.
Good old-fashioned jealousy was alive even in medieval times.

To me, it just adds an element of difficulty to what otherwise would be a very boring end-game.

[zipnar]

grifman that may be so, i'm using the account of William of Malmesbury...who is half norman, so it could be biased.
the account sumarized says:

"the couragous leaders mutually prepared for battle...

...the English passed the night without sleep in drinking and singing...King Harold himself on foot stood with his brothers near the standard (flag) so long as they all shared equal danger none should think of retreating...

...the normans passed the whole night in confessing thier sins

...the battle commenced on both sides...neither side yeilding ground during the greater part of the day...

...Observing this, WIlliam gave signal to his troops, that, pretending flight they should withdraw from the field. by means of this device the solid phalanx of the english opened for the purpose of cutting down the fleeing enemy and thus brought upon itself swift destruction; for the normans, facing about, attacked them, thus disordered, and compelled them to fly...

[The english were not] without thier own revenge, for, by frequently making a stand, they slaughtered thier pursuers in heaps...[such] alternating victory, first by one side and then by the other, continued as long as harold lived to check the retreat; but when he fell, his brain pierced by an arrow, the flight of the English ceased not until night."

this was written 50 years after the battle, and by a monk who was half english/half norman. it is the fullest account i know of, of the battle. but admittedly, it could be wrong and/or biased. i'd be very intrested if you could direct me to another good primary source about this battle grifman, i have a lot of intrest in this subject.

[barocca]

Quote[/b] (Cid @ Nov. 12 2002,09:42)]The following would be enough for me-
1\ A way to cultivate and retain allies especially natural allies.

2\More diplomatic interaction between factions,
ie sending funds, joint attacks,
being able to pass through allied territory unmolested without Crusading etc.

3\Certain events such as a Muslim invasion that would increase the probability of Christian factions putting aside their squabbles and banding together.
The same would go for Muslims.
There is no way that Western Europe would have allowed the Turks for example to overun Christendom without drawing a line somewhere.

All good points except passing through allied territory,
not too sure if i would like that one,

perhaps if you paid a fee of passage and were forbidden to attack the player while your army was passing through?

This fee would depend on how long you had been allies, and wether or not you could be trusted,

I think IF you were passing through perhaps the same rate of loss due to desertion as if your army was a crusade army?
Makes "passing through" possible, but expensive in cash and men...

unsure of how awkward that would be to code though - i can imagine more bugs creeping in...

[Cid]

Yep, I tried the Alt. Left Click while engaged and it was run for your life time within less than a minute. Maybe what's needed is the equivalent of a skirmish mode for, say, Feudal Seargents, FMAA and above where they could be ordered to give ground slowly. I have no complaints with the battle mode but thought that this would be a good inhancement.

Agreed Barocca, charge a fee for passage. The longer you've been allied or the better Ally you've been the less the fee.

I can see various (but not all) allies turning against you when you posses a sprawling empire but at the moment for example I've done well but just started. Although I'm not being physically assaulted by allies there's a worldwide plot to attack my gene pool. Not a damn thing I can do about it in spite of a history of not breaking alliances, the imminent collapse of the French faction through Almo assault etc. I just have to sit back and watch my heirs turn into characters from The Deliverance.

All of these complaints apply to GA games by the way where you supposedly don't have to conquer the known world and where the player can leave factions unmolested throughout and visa versa.

I think that some AI Common Sense tweaking could easily fix this. The best fix of all would be an Editor where one could choose one's allies--(The English and the Danes, Western Europe against Islam) etc.

FYI, on a whim I offered one of my Pricesses to the Pope and HE accepted, the old backslider. I should drop an inquisitor on him. Doesn't help my mouth breather heir problem though.

[Olaf the Unsure]

Quote[/b] (Cid @ Nov. 12 2002,09:42)]CA, if you read this, all of the above seems easy to fix. The following would be enough for me-
1\ A way to cultivate and retain allies especially natural allies.
2\More diplomatic interaction between factions, ie sending funds, joint attacks, being able to pass through allied territory unmolested without Crusading etc.Both AOE & AOK have you beat hands down in this respect and neither game approaches MTW.
3\Certain events such as a Muslim invasion that would increase the probability of Christian factions putting aside their squabbles and banding together.The same would go for Muslims. There is no way that Western Europe would have allowed the Turks for example to overun Christendom without drawing a line somewhere.

Europa-Universalis has all of these features (and more) and represents the best diplomatic model ever, in my opinion. But, it took two versions of the game and probably a dozen patches to refine the model.

MTW is a great game as is. Adding the diplomatic model of EU/EU2 would make it near perfect.