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.

[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?

[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.

[Encaitar]

A 'give ground' type order would be very useful. I would think there would have to be some limitations on it of course. Say the longer a unit has been 'giving ground', the more its morale starts to waver, making it very vulnerable to suddenly routing. So if you're going to have a unit make a fighting/orderly withdrawal, you want to make sure you get some support up there for it quick smart, and/or it's an elite unit. A unit giving ground would probably also be more vulnerable to charges, as it's not 'set', and its momentum and inclination is already somewhat backwards. As a unit giving ground is more focussed on minimising its own losses than anything else, I would think it would get a slight defence boost, whilst suffering a fair attack penalty.

I sort of see the order being used in two types of situations.
1. Where an individual unit has suffered significant losses, and is looking vulnerable. You bring up a full-strength reserve unit in its place, and have the weakened unit make an orderly withdrawal back behind the lines (as opposed to simply turning around and running off for a bit, copping high losses).
2. When you need to buy time for your troops to manouever, and the survival of that unit for as long as possible is more important than killing the enemy.

[Tamur]

Lateral shifting over short distances without the unit turning was in original STW.

Thanks Puzz, it's been a long time since I played Shogun so I had not remembered this.

Some great ideas here. I especially like Geoffrey's solution to the problem of skill in a give-ground maneuver. Penalising low-quality generals (and troops) would make it a high-risk maneuver with a possible nice payoff when executed correctly (e.g. in the situations Encaitar brought up).

sunsmountain brought up a definite possibility with the abuse of such a maneuver. I can only think of one case in which this could be a real benefit, though -- that is, if a defencive army is already backed into a corner and then does a give-ground maneuver which puts them to the edge of the playing field, and immediately after that a full withdrawal order is given and everyone takes one step over that lovely red line to safety.

On more open terrain I can't see it being an abuseable benefit. Then again I have a habit of not thinking long enough.

[sbroadbent]

In Barbarian Invasion you could fight night battles, but only if you were forced into it by the enemy, or your general had the nightfighting trait. One balancing point atleast for the Singleplayer campaign would be that the command could only be accessible if you have atleast one general who has the tactical retreat trait. It could also be linked to the general's command ability. If a unit tried this tactical retreat under a low command general they might get morale penalties which could turn the maneuver into a full fledged rout. Under a high command general though, your troops could get a morale boost.

[Vladimir]

It would be nice if regular, disciplined units could do this. Levy or peasant type troops seeing or performing this movement should experience a morale penalty similar to or the same as seeing another unit rout. Often times a move like this was misinterpreted by friend and foe alike as a rout/retreat.

[Husar]

Well, it sounds like a lot of new animations(moving backwards, fighting while moving backwards, blocking while moving backwards, fighting while moving forward, etc...) and apart from that, what keeps TW unit from following the retreating unit to the edge of the battlemap and rout them off the map considering they are still alive after such a distance? Also it's a potential new AI bug, so we may see our troops constantly fighting enemies on tactical retreat or such things.
I thought of it myself before, but it sounds like a lot of work and many possible bugs and very hard to balance. Maybe it's not worth bothering?

[sunsmountain]

A 'give ground' type order would be very useful.

Tell me about it, how do you think the battle at Cannae was won? Trying to recreate this battle in the RTW engine is only possible with some beefy morale troops and even then you'll suffer more casulaties than Hannibal did. He deployed his frontline troops similar to:

        xxx
    xxx     xxx
xxx             xxx

and let the front troops give ground. On the sides were pike units, hidden in the trees, ready to crush the Romans if they caught the bait. Which they did.

[The Lord of Dance]

Ordered withdraw was in the first MTW wasnt it?

[CBR]

Tell me about it, how do you think the battle at Cannae was won? Trying to recreate this battle in the RTW engine is only possible with some beefy morale troops and even then you'll suffer more casulaties than Hannibal did. He deployed his frontline troops similar to:

        xxx
    xxx     xxx
xxx             xxx

and let the front troops give ground. On the sides were pike units, hidden in the trees, ready to crush the Romans if they caught the bait. Which they did.

Or his losing center pulled back as losing units normally would. According to the few sources, holes even appeared in the center as some units started routing.

IIRC there has been a few battles where the whole battleline turned up to 90 degrees. That wasnt planned but simply because parts of the line were winning and advancing slowly while losing units slowly pulled back.

Getting your units to fall back on command while in melee would be extremely difficult. It would be slow and could cause a rout. Even pulling back when not in melee, but with an enemy in sight was very dangerous. So I doubt it really could be done when in actual contact with the enemy.

RTW unfortunately doesnt have units pulling back much while losing. Oh and Hannibal did not have troops hiding in the trees at Cannae. His African spears in long column formation was simply hidden by his frontline. Again something that is not possible in RTW because of the all-seeing eye of a camera.


CBR

[SpencerH]

Great suggestion. I dont see how a fighting withdrawl order/button would be unbalancing unless the AI wasnt programmed to use it properly (hmmm, my thoughts are drifting toward another whinefest.......... ).

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

[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.

[|Heerbann|_Di3Hard]

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.

And it has an other impact on the morals. Routing units makes other units fear (penalty on morals). Ordered withdrawal shouldn't.

[sunsmountain]

This would have to be tested. It's a little unrealistic though: What is to stop me from pushing you when you move backwards? Or flanking your buddy who isn't moving back at the same speed you are? There would also have to be a limit, reaching the map border with this tactic is way too good, the width of two standard deployed units should be the maximum length* you can do that before you're routing!

Or his losing center pulled back as losing units normally would. According to the few sources, holes even appeared in the center as some units started routing.

Thanks CBR, you're knowledgeable!

*unfortunately, units have no memory! This cannot be programmed because the TW engine is limited in this respect. You could easily order a withdrawal, halt, order withdrawal, halt, infinitely.

[Tamur]

A bit of news on this: the AI in 1.5 successfully accomplishes a clean pull-back once engaged. They don't step backward (i.e. they turn and run to the new position, then turn again), but they are able to get every man in the unit disengaged and into a position behind the usual line in less than ten seconds, without losing a man.

While doing some research testing on morale, I was surprised and a little dismayed when the AI general unit in half of my tests cleanly pulled out of combat, stepped back five to twenty paces, and pulled their pilae out. I've seen them pull pilae out while in combat (something heavily commented on) but to have an entire engaged unit pull back in perfect order without losing anyone was something I had not seen.

If only the player could do the same thing.

[Kourutsu]

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

[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.