Run away!!

[MrFun]

To Sabre and others - please no flaming other people in here just because you disagree.

I agree with others that if one does not like the Retreat feature, then they should simply not use it and stop complaining. BUT NO FLAMING others.

Sabre,

let's keep this civil, ok?
i would not like to do something that i would not like to do


wheathin,

you're dreaming...

[Stratesford]

Retreat is cool with me, and you do take some damage most of the time.

testing christmas faces

:P

[Ironwolf]

Metamorph,

Historically when intelligence cannot give a complete picture of the enemy situation, the military has long used reconnaissance by fire and probing in force as a method to determine the enemy's strength. As an infantry officer, we trained on the conduct of reconnaissance in strength. You don't sacrifice units unnecessarily. To me, the retreat option makes combat more realistic. No commander would allow his units to fight to the death against a superior force. He would withdraw to a defensive position and await reinforcements.

[Sabre2th]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 12-04-2000 11:21 AM Sabre, let's keep this civil, ok?

Sorry Mark. I didn't mean it like that, I just meant that it was kind of pointless to keep throwing the same two points of view back and forth.

Ironwolf, I believe Meta has a problem with the implementation of the idea, not the idea itself...

Sabre, thanks...
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited December 05, 2000).]

[Metamorph]

Yes, precisely. (Holy crap; MarkG and I agree? Call Guiness. )

Retreating is an interesting concept. I can envision its potential applicability in a civlike environment. Here's how *I* would implement retreating in CtP2:

- Retreat is a configurable option on the game creation screen. Either retreating is allowed; or it is disallowed.
- Both the attacker AND the defender have the capacity to retreat.
- Combat PAUSES round to round, permitting either player to elect to retreat whenever he or she wishes.
- If the attacker retreats, the attacking stack is left in the square from which it originated; its move for that turn is OVER. No bombarding; no attacking again; no moving away; no fortifying. OVER.
- If the defender retreats, the defending units are moved to available, adjacent squares of the defender's choice utilizing their next turn's movement points (if available). If the units have no more remaining "borrowed movement", then they cannot retreat.
- The AI knows how to make use of retreating, either on the attack or on defense.
- Units which retreat will not heal for that turn.
- Units which retreat cannot harvest slaves.
- Units which retreat cannot gain veteran status.
- When a stack retreats, the opposing stack gets one free round of normal combat, PLUS one round of missile volley (i.e., the exact inverse of the methodology used when engaging in the first place).

So for example: your 12 hoplites attack a city. Lo and behold, it's protected by three fortified cannons. Oops. The cannons immediately fire. You take missile damage. Now you may:
1) Immediately retreat. As you're still only in missile range, the cannons fire once more, one or two hoplites explode, and the combat ends.
2) Continue fighting. You engage in melee; a round of 'normal' combat ensues. Some of your hoplites get wasted. You retreat. The enemy gets another swing at you, then gets another missile volley at you. You lose more hoplites. The combat ends.
3) Continue fighting. You engage in melee; a round of 'normal' combat ensues. Some of your hoplites get wasted. You fight some more. You lose some more hoplites. The cannons start taking damage. Your opponent (or, God forbid, the AI?) decides to retreat because it's about to lose its cannons to stinking hoplites. The cannons are all moved just outside of the city. The hoplites win. Of course, next round, the cannons are all adjacent to your new city, and still have sufficient movement left to perform a bombard...

These principles seem relatively straightforward to me. If you disagree, feel free to point out equally intuitive alternate design methodologies; I'm sure I'd have no problem with them as well.

Just common sense, folks. That's all I ask. Honest.

- Metamorph

[Paulypav]

I couldn't agree with you more, Metamorph. Your methodology makes the most sense to me. The real question know is it either patchable by Activision or can one of the resident geniuses find a way to modify this?

------------------
“The American people have now spoken, but it’s going to take a little while to determine exactly what
they said.” — President Clinton

[zippyg]

Could someone expand on what ICS means/is please ?

[Ironwolf]

I agree Metamorph. That kind of system would be great to have.

[MrFun]

I remember when people used to quibble over one specific, minor feature in the game endlessly and . . .

oh wait - never mind - they still do.

Seriously though, there are a couple interesting posts in here about the Retreat feature.

[Sabre2th]

I agree with metamorph in that the retreat feature could have been better, but we have to stop at some point and realize that no game will ever be 100% perfect.

[hHydro]

Of course the game's not perfect, but you guys didn't need to jump on Meta so harshly when he pointed that out.. I still agree that while retreating is an important part of battle, it was very poorly implemented.

With luck we can get this addressed in a patch.

[zippyg]

Could someone expand on what ICS means/is please ?

this is the secomd time I've asked this.

thanks

[wheathin]

There have been dozens of discussions of ICS over the last 2 years. Try searching the Call to Power - General, Civ2, and Civ3 forums.

[romelus]

i tried searching for ics, and got posts containing words like politICS.

can't someone just answer what ICS is?

[wheathin]

Sorry - didn't think of the partial words.

Try "Infinite City Sleaze" - Metamorph and Celestial Dawn had some good posts on the subject in CtP - General.

The big reason no one wants to describe it is that it is slightly complex, has been re-hashed a gazillion times without solution, and usually provokes much rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth.

There really oughta be a FAQ on this one...
[This message has been edited by wheathin (edited December 08, 2000).]

[Big Dave]

quote: Originally posted by romelus on 12-08-2000 02:26 PM i tried searching for ics, and got posts containing words like politICS. can't someone just answer what ICS is?

Try searching on " ICS " without the quotes. Put a space before and after it. ZippyG, I PM'd the answer to you, if you want to forward it on to Romelus I'm sure he'd appreciate it.

------------------
Big Dave

Do the Vatican police speak Pig Latin?

[King Thor]

I agree with metamorph about how the retreat option should be implemented. Basically, allow retreat (just like in reality) but also put a heavier penalty for retreating (just like in reality). A retreating army does take a beating.

However, I wouldn't do so far as to say including "retreat" in the game was a game flaw. The way I see it, the game developers realized that some less skilled players may want to use this feature. Yes people could abuse it, and people do.. just the way people use cheats and trainers. In the end, I think the way it should be viewed is "The feature is there for you to use. If you abuse it, well, you're doing the equivalent of cheating. If you dont abuse it you are using a feature that you might have wanted. And if you DONT want to use it.. dont use it." . The reason they disabled it in the MP portion of the game is because they realized that there oculd be a conflict here between people who DONT want to use it, and those who DO.

I think its commendable that the game developers are actively taking risks and trying to take the whole Civ gaming series to a new level by introducing all these new and realistic concepts.

I think metamorph, you dont hate the concept of retreating so much as you hate the way it has been implemented. Thats fine. The retreat concept isn't wrong, but I think its the implementation thats all wrong.

I still think it was a great idea that game developers put that option in. I recognize the risks they take and often when you experiment and introduce totally new concepts you dont get the implementations just right in the first go. But I see this small option as another step towards a much better, more realistic and more immersive gaming experience. I applaud Activision's efforts at innovating. Keep it up... however, also keep the patches rolling.

[ElitePersian]

quote: Originally posted by Sabre2th on 12-06-2000 03:22 PM I agree with metamorph in that the retreat feature could have been better, but we have to stop at some point and realize that no game will ever be 100% perfect.

I hate it when people say things like that. Basically, what you are saying is that we should never thrive for making a game better, we should accept the fact that it will never be 100% and there is no use trying. Just because a game can't be 100%, we shouldnt deal with the issues in the game? I think not.

And about the whole "retreat then attack, retreat then attack" strategy, doesn't anyone ever save the game before they attack and reload if they lose????? I think that makes the game 100 times easier than the retreat then attack strategy, it sorta takes the difficulty out of the game, maybe there should something that lets you only save the game every few turns, just an idea.

Anways I really agree with metamorph's idea and it should REALLY be put into SERIOUS consideration for a patch by Activision, although i don't really have high expectations from Activision on a patch.

[JamesG2458]

Now that I have read all the replies in this forum is it too late to retreat?

Retreat is a good idea, the implementation is poor. My ideas for repairing game balance.

Defenders should be able to retreat also.
When retreating a stacked army there should be a chance that it will split into several stacks (confusion of war).
You should be able to retreat some of your army more successfully if you leave behind a sacrificial lamb(didn't need those stinking hopilites anyway).

By making it less advantageous to retreat, but still a worthwhile option, maybe game balance can be reached.


------------------
.JG.

[blinder2451]

If any of you play Multiplayer, I will build the Emancipation Proclomation so the slaves aren't a factor, and I'll disable Retreat.

Ok, so I rush an expendable unit into the city, and its destroyed but that screen just sits there, showing me every feature of the land.

I think if a Hoplite jumps in, you should see only the field of view of that unit, like the enemy's Warrior, not the whole battle!

It makes recon easy!

[Diadochi]

It would be nice if Defenders got the option to retreat.

I think it annoys people (and quite rightly) that both old and novel ideas implemented in CTP2 are "buggy".

The game does seem rather easy, so anything that makes the game easier is a dissappointment, although personally I like retreating, and don't intend to cheat.