Army Movement Range in Forced March Mode

**Bramborough** · 04-24-2015, 18:29

One thing I've noticed about Attila compared to R2: The extra movement range afforded by Forced March is far less. An R2 would have its movement range increased somewhere between 50-80% (I don't think it was fully doubled), but Attila armies seem to be something closer to 20% or so (just eyeballing).

Many times, I've seen that an army will get zero extra movement for Forced March mode. Even if a) in my own territory, b) start with full movement points, c) hasn't been hindered by an agent, d) has full integrity, etc. But other armies do get some extra movement. I haven't been able to find a trait, skill, or household item that is specific to Forced March mode. Any ideas?

I'm guessing that maybe there's an unmentioned Forced March bonus which comes along with the more general "Campaign Movement" buffs.

**Hooahguy** · 04-24-2015, 21:41

I absolutely prefer this to Rome 2's forced march. It makes much more sense that all units start off as exhausted when attacking in forced march than it is to have an ambush battle. The reduced range is also better I think so its not too overpowered. Also do they still have unlimited retreats? In every previous TW game, armies could only retreat once, then they were stuck and had to fight. Or maybe the unlimited retreats is only for factions in horde mode?

**Slaists** · 04-24-2015, 21:50

The tooltip for forced march states the bonus is 25% in Attila (In Rome 2 it's 50%). It is bugged though. There are times when one definitely does not get the promised 25%.

However, in Attila there are ways to significantly increase move range through other means: general's skills, army traditions and tech. Those are faction dependent though.

Roads also increase move range a lot in Attila.

**Bramborough** · 04-25-2015, 00:14

Oh sure, I wasn't talking about increasing base movement range through roads/tech/skills, and such. I've just been befuddled why I so often get zero extra from the forced march, specifically.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 04-26-2015, 22:08

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I absolutely prefer this to Rome 2's forced march. It makes much more sense that all units start off as exhausted when attacking in forced march than it is to have an ambush battle. The reduced range is also better I think so its not too overpowered. Also do they still have unlimited retreats? In every previous TW game, armies could only retreat once, then they were stuck and had to fight. Or maybe the unlimited retreats is only for factions in horde mode?

Never seen unlimited retreats, even Huns have to fight after expending their movement points. However, in previous games it was based specifically on movements points, I remember in Rome I being unable to retreat because I'd used up all my movements points in my turn, additionally you could get more than one retreat in that game, if you had a lot of movement points because of your general and had been stationary then you might have some left over after the first retreat and be able to retreat again.

There's nothing like running like a bitch and escaping by the skin of your teeth.

**Bramborough** · 04-27-2015, 12:15

I'm not against the retreat mechanic, in either R2 or Attila. Yeah it's annoying when you're chasing down a skeleton stack whose only threat is raiding. But sometimes it saves one of my own armies (or at least its general).

What irritates me is the uncontrollable direction of the retreat. First, why wouldn't I be able to dictate which path to take? After all, it's a retreat, not a rout. Second...alright, if it's gotta be undirected, then why does my army almost always retreat in the dumbest possible way? Wouldn't a general want to fall back toward a friendly town? Or another friendly stack? No, they'd much rather run off into the woods, or some cul-de-sac with river and mountains on three sides from which they can't get out.

**ReluctantSamurai** · 04-27-2015, 14:27

What irritates me is the uncontrollable direction of the retreat. First, why wouldn't I be able to dictate which path to take? After all, it's a retreat, not a rout. Second...alright, if it's gotta be undirected, then why does my army almost always retreat in the dumbest possible way? Wouldn't a general want to fall back toward a friendly town? Or another friendly stack? No, they'd much rather run off into the woods, or some cul-de-sac with river and mountains on three sides from which they can't get out.

The devs have continued to show a complete lack of understanding of battlefield mechanics that first appeared in R1 (the worst example being the pinball fleet battles). An army should not be able to retreat at all if it's less mobile than it's attackers. This has been a dictum of warfare since the advent of cavalry, and later AFV's. An army on foot cannot escape mounted troops unless the terrain is completely unfavorable to the attackers. Then there is the violation of ZOC rules that have been around since games were played on boards. If an army has to retreat through another hostile army's ZOC, or is backed against unpassable terrain, then it has to surrender or be destroyed.

Until someone at CA truly understands how battlefield mechanics actually work, we will continue to see such foolishness as retreating stacks moving past your troops in the direction they were headed anyway, or your armies getting stuck at the south end of a north-bound kangaroo