Withdrawal Order

[Tamur]

Being here and on the old boards I have seen requests fairly consistently for years for a command in the form of "orderly withdrawal".

For those who are new here, that's a command issued to troops who are engaged with an enemy unit to disengage and back away without turning their backs to the enemy (which almost always causes a rout). It takes a while and can be messy and sticky, but it's a tactic referred to very, very often throughout history in recorded accounts of battles.

I'm bringing it up again because, though it has been mentioned time and again, it does not seem to ever quite make it into the TW games.

So I'm wondering 1) if anyone has ever seen a game in which this was implemented, and 2) if there are inherent difficulties others (specifically programmers) can see in such a thing?

[Geoffrey S]

I'd love to see this; perhaps with some kind of morale, attack and defense penalty attached to make it a risky but potentially battle-winning tactic.

[B-Wing]

I assume by "withdraw" you don't mean actually ordering the unit to withdraw from the entire battle, but rather to relocate without exposing their backsides?

[Lord Adherbal]

ideally all units get a slight combat and/or morale bonus depending on the amount of ranks a unit is deep. If you would activate such a "give ground" ability, the unit would lose this bonus, because the latter ranks would slow back away, thus not giving proper combat support to the front rank. Or it could just give a -X attack penalty to the unit, considering they're focused on slightly moving backward, and not actual trying to kill their opponents.

the only concern is that it might be use too often.

[The Wizard]

I don't know, really. A tactical withdrawal was a very tricky and risky operation for any commander to undertake. Wouldn't it be belittling that fact to give the entire concept a simple button?

[Tamur]

Good point, Wizard. I was thinking of it as a single command (i.e. move here and keep your backsides pointed toward the spot you're moving, with penalties such as those put forward by Adherbal & Geoffrey), which could be used in all sorts of different ways from the player's point of view -- basically filling in one of the missing tools in the tactical toolkit. Coordinating a wing or entire army tactical withdrawal is something I had not considered.

This brings up another question: taken to the most basic level of abstraction, what commands does a general need?

- turn some direction and move forward at a walk/run/charge
- move backwards without changing direction (this give-ground command)
- slide sideways without changing direction (one that we dont' have in TW)
- attack a unit
- guard a piece of ground
- withdraw from battle
- ??

And yes, B_Ray, I am talking about "giving ground" as Adherbal put it, a much better term than withdrawal since that is already in the game as a complete run-away-from-battle command. My mistake, and sorry I can't edit the thread title now.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

well it would be nice if you could withdraw during melee without that unit routing.
so i could use the Roman way of fighting.

[sunsmountain]

Yes, it would open up new battlemap possibilities, but...

... it would also create new unbalance, where you can always minimize losses using "withdrawal order" or "fighting while moving backwards" or what have you. The problem is balancing these game mechanics so players & AI don't abuse them.

As it stands you can withdraw troops from combat and try to run away, but some troops will have to pin them down and be sacrificed for this. Perhaps the defense penalty for being attacked from behind should be lowered so you can pull this off better.

But the battle should be fought on the battlefield. Else you'll move all the decisive battles to the siege map, which i'm not exactly fond of. Or would you like to fight backwards during sieges as well? Could take ages that way. Anyway, the concept sounds pretty cool.

[B-Wing]

... it would also create new unbalance, where you can always minimize losses using "withdrawal order" or "fighting while moving backwards" or what have you. The problem is balancing these game mechanics so players & AI don't abuse them.

Hmm, I'm not really seeing the problem here. I don't see how allowing a unit to creep backward could unbalance the game. But if it helps, perhaps it should be implimented in such a way that moving backwards lowers that units attack rating. That seems fairly realistic, and it would make it hard for a backing unit to inflict casualties on the enemies they're engaged with.

- slide sideways without changing direction (one that we dont' have in TW)

Yes, that would be excellent! If I had to choose one or the other (backing up or lateral shifting), I'd go with this one.

[Puzz3D]

Yes, that would be excellent! If I had to choose one or the other (backing up or lateral shifting), I'd go with this one.

Lateral shifting over short distances without the unit turning was in original STW. When you moved a unit in any direction other than straight ahead it lost cohesion during the move and suffered a morale penalry. It didn't get this morale loss back unless there was a friendly unit in a supporting position due to a small hysteresis in the morale system.

[IrishArmenian]

That would be a great command. I could see drawing a strong enemy unit into my formation using a weaker unit and having the calvary come from both wings and flank them. Grate Idea.

[Geoffrey S]

I don't know, really. A tactical withdrawal was a very tricky and risky operation for any commander to undertake. Wouldn't it be belittling that fact to give the entire concept a simple button?

Perhaps the morale or combat penalies could be more severe for less accomplished generals, making it far more likely that a unit of basic spearmen given this order by a general with two stars will rout very quickly in comparison to units ordered about by a better leader.

Or maybe such a command could be limited to either more experienced units or more elite units?

[The Wizard]

Perhaps the morale or combat penalies could be more severe for less accomplished generals, making it far more likely that a unit of basic spearmen given this order by a general with two stars will rout very quickly in comparison to units ordered about by a better leader.

Or maybe such a command could be limited to either more experienced units or more elite units?

I'd more argue for it to remain a tactic employable as it always has been: manually. Only that can, in my opinion, truly emulate the complexity of a maneuver such as this one.

'Falling back' would be a better term wouldn't it?

Not really. Unlike an orderly retreat, this is a tactic used to draw out the enemy from an advantageous position he may have taken and leave him vulnerable to an ambush or counterattack. Falling back, or an orderly retreat, is something a commander would rather never do.

[Bob the Insane]

I see what this thread is getting at but I think it simply is not in the game. It would be nice (especially if the AI also used it against you).

Instead of just the Hold Ground command you Give Ground and maybe Push Forwrad options in which your troops which attmept to carry out these manouvres. THe Give Ground would mean letting the attacking enemy push you back and could be associated with a slight morale/attack penatly; not a problem for those elite units but a potential diesaster is attempted with peasants. The Push forward could lend extra weight to your troop's attacks in an attempt push back the enemy but come with a defensive penalty (again leading to potential diesaster if attempted with lightly armoured units).

But having said that, I don;t think we should get to excited by potential features that are not in the currect current version of the engine and are unlikely to be in M2:TW... That path leads to automatic disappointment...

[Encaitar]

Good thinking Bob. You could also try to tie in 'depth' of formations with this. i.e. it would be easier to 'push back' an enemy line that's only 2 or 3 troops deep, but if it was say 5 men deep, it would resist more effectively. So essentially you'd be better able to attempt to exploit weaknesses in the enemy's line.

[r johnson]

I don't know, really. A tactical withdrawal was a very tricky and risky operation for any commander to undertake. Wouldn't it be belittling that fact to give the entire concept a simple button?

it'd be alot easier though

[poo_for_brains]

I think an ordered withdrawal would be a good idea, but first I woud like an ordered advance, wherein your battle line advances as a battle line, and engages as a battleline, instead of having to target individual units at individual enemy units. If they could implement that, it would be great, and tactical withdrawal could easiy be added - it would be the same thing in reverse.

[Tamur]

hi damiekpe,

Unless I'm misunderstanding you (which is entirely possible), an ordered advance as you describe is possible. Simply group your units in whatever formation you wish, then alt-click some point past the enemy army, in the direction you wish them to attack from. When they reach the enemy, they will start fighting whatever unit they happen to run into.

Just to be sure, I tried three battles yesterday doing the same thing in reverse (i.e. engaging my troops, then alt-clicking in the back of my units to try to move them backward in an ordered withdrawal). In all cases, they simply turned around and started walking -- forward -- toward their destination. Ah well.

Hows about a "chase the nearest routing enemy unit button"?

This would be *very* handy, yes, having just finished a few battles against the Macedonians where I had to spend most of my time at the end scanning the field for small fleeing units.

[poo_for_brains]

cheers for the alt-click thing, Tamur, didn't know that.
In that case, they should definitely have ordered withdrawal: it wouldn't be very hard for them to put it in, and they haven't provided any new controls for the battle UI - it's about time they did.

[The Lord of Dance]

Ordered withdraw was in the first MTW wasnt it?

[Kourutsu]

'Falling back' would be a better term wouldn't it?