Retreat

WiseOdin wrote:

enochen wrote:

well yeah, but in a war you have to have people constantly keeping an eye on everything or you would get screwed.

so why should simulated war be any different?

I mean if you were at work and I someone snuck in an defeated a bunch of your armies and took your cites before you could react, how would that be any different?

Difference, is I already have your units trapped in battle. For them to escape from that fight, to attack elsewhere is far different than you finding a gap in defenses, in the first place. Especially if the gap was created, by a large force moving to intercept yours. You going, "Backsies!" and moving your units to attack elsewhere wouldn't be proper, for an RTS to employ.

that's ridiculous. if you can't check on your forces while at work then I have to suffer in a losing battle instead of salvaging what I have left and trying to regroup?

To your point I don't believe retreat should give the retreater and advantage. you would have to suffer extra losses on the way out. make turn advantage to the army with the upper hand where they get 1-2 extra attacks on you without you responding to make it more "realistic" as you turn tail and run.

I find highly doubtful that a retreating force would turn around and just attack a weak point, and if so make it a rule where they retreating army can't reform for a day.

Then you have time to respond and keep from getting sideswiped while away from thw computer.

but I wake up every morning and see a bunch of stuff has happened while I was gone because people play in different time zones. I don't see how this is any different.

VorlonFCW wrote:

Being able to retreat would turn the game into "Whack a mole" instead of Call of War.

Like I said:

If you split your force and some can retreat I should be able to split my force and chase them down. SO the result is we have two battles going on instead of one. Then you will want to split and retreat again, so I will split and chase you again, so we have three battles. Why bother?

so I guess you don't believe in guerilla warfare?

it's called war, and there are no rules.

you want to fight like they did in the pre-revolution days - just line everyone up and fire at each other.

real war isn't like that. If you are outnumbered and out gunned you can make a run for it and, as the old saying goes, "live to fight another day"

hell, even macarthur fled the Philippines

Quasi-duck wrote:

I have never understood why the same people that want paratroopers do not want a retreat option.

enochen wrote:

VorlonFCW wrote:

Being able to retreat would turn the game into "Whack a mole" instead of Call of War.

Like I said:

If you split your force and some can retreat I should be able to split my force and chase them down. SO the result is we have two battles going on instead of one. Then you will want to split and retreat again, so I will split and chase you again, so we have three battles. Why bother?

so I guess you don't believe in guerilla warfare?

it's called war, and there are no rules.

you want to fight like they did in the pre-revolution days - just line everyone up and fire at each other.

real war isn't like that. If you are outnumbered and out gunned you can make a run for it and, as the old saying goes, "live to fight another day"

hell, even macarthur fled the Philippines

totally agree.

I mean I don't think it should be something you would take lightly, but it would still have a purpose at times.

chances are a lot of times it wouldn't be very beneficial, but you might be able to save some units.

WiseOdin wrote:

Without mines and hedgehogs (barricades) or barbed wire being part of the game, retreating really just means taking a step back, and still getting shot at.