defense vs attack

**Puzz3D** · 08-31-2005, 05:13

Originally Posted by Razor1952

One solution to the corner unable to be flanked method would be that troops outside the main battle arena would suffer a big morale drop.(perhaps if set to defense?)

In STW, units near the edge of the map suffered a morale penalty. This feature is apparently not in RTW.

As far as I'm concerned, backing into a corner is not playing in the spirit of the game.

**econ21** · 08-31-2005, 09:28

Originally Posted by Puzz3D

In STW, units near the edge of the map suffered a morale penalty.

I never knew that. (Don't think it was in MTW either.) What a cool feature.

I remember another clever STW feature against "gamey tactics". In STW, I had a battle of one AI spear vs one cav of mine. I tried to lead the AI spear on a dance around the map, but eventually my cav's morale fell and it routed.

**Conqueror** · 08-31-2005, 10:06

Whether it's better to attack or defend depends much on the composition of your army and the enemy's. If you have long range missile units (and plenty of them) but the enemy doesn't, then you should attack - this leaves them with the choise betwen sitting still and being shot dead, or charging your lines (effectively making you the defender vs their attack). This might fail if the terrain allows them to deploy on a high hill. If you are playing on huge unit size though, then onagers can cause massive destruction to an army camping on a hill.

**Sjakihata** · 08-31-2005, 10:35

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

I remember another clever STW feature against "gamey tactics". In STW, I had a battle of one AI spear vs one cav of mine. I tried to lead the AI spear on a dance around the map, but eventually my cav's morale fell and it routed.

AFAIK That's not a 'feature'. I think you are speaking of the rout-bug. When you gave a unit too many orders, sometimes it routed, with no possibility to rally it.

**Puzz3D** · 08-31-2005, 12:11

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

AFAIK That's not a 'feature'. I think you are speaking of the rout-bug. When you gave a unit too many orders, sometimes it routed, with no possibility to rally it.

It wasn't bug. The purpose of the feature was to prevent winning by repeatedly retreating until the timer ran down. It was changed in MI so that ranged units could be moved back away from the enemy without routing as long as they still had ammo. I think the feature was removed in MTW.

Another feature that STW had was you could move into the red edge area, which was two tiles wide, if your unit was moving. That meant a stationary defender who tried to use the map edge to protect a flank could be outflanked along the edge. Many multiplayers didn't like this feature, and it was removed. One problem with the feature was that units in the red zone could shoot but couldn't be targeted for return fire.

**L'Impresario** · 08-31-2005, 12:31

The purpose of the feature was to prevent winning by repeatedly retreating until the timer ran down. It was changed in MI so that ranged units could be moved back away from the enemy without routing as long as they still had ammo. I think the feature was removed in MTW.

There was still the "constant retreat" morale penalty, which could be important in low morale and/or high fatigue situations, ofcourse being defender and retreating a bit is affordable as the attacker still has to cover more ground (I'm assuming here 2 bars' phase in relatively plain terrain).
Now that I read again the above post it seems that it only refers to missile unit retreats. I can't recall seeing "constant retreating" penalties for missile units tho.

**Orda Khan** · 08-31-2005, 16:43

The morale penalty for repeated retreat was something that interfered with the tactical use of some units. Deliberately 'retreating' after an engagement is a legitimate tactic, as in feigned retreat. This tactic was used to great effect by various armies and it could cause an opponent's army to lose its formation, thereby making them vulnerable to the 'actual' attack. The morale penalty dictated 'forward only' tactics and ( IMO ) was a nuisance. Maybe the Moslem factions of MTW would have fared better had this penalty been removed from them. Admittedly, there has to be a defining feature to prevent 'constant' retreat but it is a fine line before it becomes a restriction that limits tactical approach. In STW it was even worse, where it was like a countdown of backward moves. Once you reached your limit your unit simply had enough and marched off. There has to be a differential between being forced to retreat and choosing to

......Orda

**L'Impresario** · 08-31-2005, 17:02

That was indeed an issue, specifically with factions having HA and fast shock cav.
Still it was not so great if the enemy was actually forced to attack you after pushing him into a position that was clearly giving him a disadvantage, namely the unability to respond effectively to skirmishing and a clearly superior firepower -though it has to be quite distinct sometimes to make the defender attack, in any other case it requires bad/rush playing, inability to measure the potential harm being provoked by abandoning defensive or generally good terrain for concetrated allied movements, troops vulnerable to missiles and some other factors.
Yet florin level,map size/terrain type, # of players, overall game pace were more important in order to determine how and when the retreating morale penalty would kick in, and the effects it 'll have over the final battle result.