Some thoughts on battle dynamics (guerilla warfare)

[Locke11110]

Long answer yes with an if. Short answer No with a but. WESTERN EUROPEAN military commanders were against it. In the late medieval ages and on. In the beginning (Early Medieval, or more commonly the dark ages) it was common and even rampant. The Vikings were well known to do this, and yes while being before the set time period of this game, only a few decades before and were definitely not the only ones. Now the Muslims, the eastern european and most importantly the Mongolians used Guerilla tactics. The Turks assaulted the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Crusading armies in very complex guerilla battles. The idea that retreat isn't an option is ludicrous. retreat is not losing. In real battle tactics call for you to be flexible. The Mongols would retreat and counter multiple times in a battle. Indeed it is the general who believes retreat is not an option who is losing on one of his biggest assets, the ability to fight another day. Maybe the plan didn't go right, maybe you need different terrain, maybe your men are tired. Honestly Guerilla tactics and the ability to retreat is absolutley neccesary for any battle simulation. One classic example would be the height of english civilized battle, the battle of waterloo. The British unintentionally faked a retreat drawing Napoleons cavarly into the English square, thus destroying the Cavalry. And again when Napoleon sent his Old Guard to destroy the Remnant of the English infantry the English hid their numbers thus surprising the old guard and destroying Naploeon's army.

[pike master]

that is true. when the enemy attacks retreat.

when he halts harass.

when he retreats attack.

true the vikings whenever they encountered organized resistance they hopped back in their boats.

[zeroyuugi]

I agree with the statement that it is not necessary to the game because guerilla warfare doesn't fit into the scope of the game (for the most part)... the tactical retreat, to say nothing of more complex methods is not something a medieval (European) army (large scale) would have used...

The belief against retreating or using other less reputable methods has always been a part of the Christian war tradition and we still hold true to many of those standards (the Law of Armed Conflict presently)...

Thus it is perfectly reasonable that if you use said tactics in-game, your general might acquire traits according to his conduct.

[SMZ]

as pointed out above however, there are at least 5 factions who don't share the idea that retreating and feigned retreats are dishonorable

maybe a situation where the orthodox and muslim factions generals don't get penalized for such tactics would serve nicely... i don't think it would bother the italians that much - really it was only the cultures that centered on the knight which saw conflict as a simple matter of lining up and charging straight together, and frowned on doing anything but...

come to it, I don't think it'd bother the english, scots, danes, hungarians or polish either.... the scots have already bucked the trend by dismounting their nobles and fighting on foot with pikes, something the continental powers frown upon, which in turn drove the english to field archer heavy armies, something the continentals frown upon even more.... the hungarians and polish are kinda buying into the knight mythos, but they've still got the hit and run tactics in their systems - and the danes... well they were never fully on board either

[bobajob]

I think people are confusing idealised notions of warfare with what acutally happened. People fought to win, they didnt care about slaughtering captives or restricting weapons when it suited them nor did they care guerilla tactics.

Im not sure how you define such tactics, but skirmishes, raids on supplies, feigned retreats and ambushes were all commonly used.

Getting your main army in a postion to fight there main army total war style was just part of the story.

The modern dislike of guerilla/terrorist type of warfare stems from the fact that it usually belongs to the weaker (non western) party.

belief against retreating or using other less reputable methods has always been a part of the Christian war tradition and we still hold true to many of those standards (the Law of Armed Conflict presently)...

Err whats the rule against retreating now days???

[pike master]

yeah to think when i was young it was considered unproper in the movies of the day to see an enemy get attacked or shot from behind. now it is well excepted fact that victories were won that way. surprise attacks and deception were all features of a victorious general.but as has been said modern countries today dont like to see their armed forces withdraw from a theatre of a war to be used again more successfully somewhere else.

but in world war 2 a tactical retreat was just something that was accepted as part of the war by drawing out an armored penetration then pinching it off by withdrawing the divisions in the path of armored spearhead.

now a days even when it is clear that a compromised army should be withdrawn from a theatre in a broader war so they can reform and be used more effectively somewhere else it is frowned upon as a horrible defeat.

of course war these days is more a war of the minds and wills of the mob.and not the occupied countries people as much as it is the occupiers countries people. if an enemy can undermine his opponents mobs confidence and belief in a war than he can win that war even if he is fighting against a superior army who is killing his soldiers by the droves.

this was evident in vietnam as it is today. when the mob becomes psyched out it undermines a war effort and encourages the enemy to continue the fight which in turn undermines the war effort further.

in the future a country must take the fickleness of the mob before they go to war and understand that the reason for the war is not as important as whether it can be won successfully. of course this is somewhat controversial issue but it is not intended to be and would be based upon the opinions of one group of people as opposed to another who see it from a different point of view.

sorry for getting off topic and apologies if i have suggested anything that is controversial. just trying to get across how a nations people would view a general who conducts a tactical withdrawal at different times in history.

the germans learned to be experts at the tactical withdrawal in world war 2. of course it was forced upon them. the idea of maintaining some kind of organized force even if inferior in front of an enemy is better than that same unit being forced into battle and getting crushed.

that was interesting with washington during the american war of independence. he always kept an army in the field which is a sign of a full blown rebellion it made a statement to the british and carried discouragement to the mob at home.

i suppose any form of democracy or bilateral govt is vulnerable to being undermined by and insurgent war. but if it can be kept quited many insurgencies have been extinguished. in example in germany after ww2 it was know that nazi insurgents kept up attacks for up to 5 years before giving up which resulted from it not being revealed or discussed on the news.

oops there i go again.

[Whacker]

lots of stuff

Easy there, Star Captain McTalkative.

To me, the bottom line here is that guerilla warfare and tactics have been used since the beginning of known history and to great effect, by many many cultures. Yes, Foz is right that there was a general sense of honor associated with direct confrontation in europe during the middle ages, but as we all know all's fair in love and war, and if you need to get the job done you get the job done. It's also worth noting that it's possible to conquer the entire map with very little combat if you choose to play the game that way. I think that in general any "winning" strategy should be rewarded, no matter how one goes about it. This'd definitely make the game more realistic for people who want to use hordes of archers or HA's.

[Razor1952]

The question to me is not so much whether it should be implemented but rather that in a strategy game , the player must be faced with decisions which have an up and a down side. It strikes me that it would be very hard to balance this attack so it wasn't a must do thing, or on other hand a useless option. The ai at present has enough trouble fielding respectable armies, so adding this seems insurmountable. I'd love to be proved wrong of course.

It would have to be something implemented in a future TW game as I'm sure it couldn't be accomodated in MTW2.

[Foz]

The question to me is not so much whether it should be implemented but rather that in a strategy game , the player must be faced with decisions which have an up and a down side. It strikes me that it would be very hard to balance this attack so it wasn't a must do thing, or on other hand a useless option. The ai at present has enough trouble fielding respectable armies, so adding this seems insurmountable. I'd love to be proved wrong of course.

It would have to be something implemented in a future TW game as I'm sure it couldn't be accomodated in MTW2.

Very good point. If you allow retreats that have no downside whatsoever and can actually count as wins and thus boost your general's stats, then why should anyone ever do anything besides this? As it stands, you can take advantage of your ability to retreat, but not without costs associated. Without those drawbacks, it would be viable to field an all artillery army and just keep throwing it against enemies, wasting all ammo, and retreating, all the while growing a powerful general. Clearly that kind of situation is not the best for maintaining a playable, fun, and challenging game...