Escape from the battlefield

[Remake 2012]

Hello.


The idea is not new. A remake is a good game where you can have several dozen troops. Going into battle with enemy army of losing control of the entire branch. But does it have to be? My idea:
4x4 column of soldiers, 4v4 versus enemy soldiers. At the time of the first rows of battle are fighting warriors. The other encircle to attack. If the enemy has archers we lose. How to avoid this? New button "Battle retreat," or warriors who are part of the team and did not are fighting in close quarters can be separated and withdraw. This allows us to save the remnants of the troops.

[Krom]

Warriors engagement in a battle is a nice way of making players do more tactics thinking before doing an attack. Thats one of the things that makes this game unlike other RTS.

[krisdw]

Yep. Agreed. Though realism seems to be held in high regard in terms of this game, and in real life, armies frequently retreated from battle. Suppose there would be an option that you can retreat from battle once per game? It would give players more tactical considerations: This battle is not going good. Do I use my Retreat now or save it for later when it might be more important?
I don't know if it would make the game better or not, but it surely is realistic. And by giving only one retreat per game, the system can't be abused.

[Remake 2012]

Yep. Agreed. Though realism seems to be held in high regard in terms of this game, and in real life, armies frequently retreated from battle. Suppose there would be an option that you can retreat from battle once per game? It would give players more tactical considerations: This battle is not going good. Do I use my Retreat now or save it for later when it might be more important?
I don't know if it would make the game better or not, but it surely is realistic. And by giving only one retreat per game, the system can't be abused.

I badly written. I meant to regain control over the military.(Only those who did not fight in shorting) - important !

[krisdw]

Yes, and you can regain control by retreating, so you can send your soldiers back to a safe place if the need is there. If you mean to be able to choose which unit your soldiers should attack, that would be a terrible idea for a game like KAM in my opinion.

[Da Revolution]

I think he means splitting the troops that aren't fighting of. So you regain control over those not fighting units.

I'm against it though. It doesn't fit in the KaM idea.

[Encaitar]

I think it would be a nice feature. For me KaM is all about realism. E.g. you don't pop up soldiers by 'paying' gold/food like say AoE, but you need to produce all the necessary products -> sword, shield, recruit, etc.

Thinking about that, fleeing from the battlefield is realistic. In the Total War series, if your soldiers would flee, you do not have control over them anymore (the computer decides in TW when your soldiers do retreat, I would vote to let the player decide to do that though). I would suggest that if you choose to retreat your soldiers, for a short amount of time you still cannot control them, as they run amok. This adds realism to the battlefield, as fleeing soldiers are much weaker than those whom stand fighting. Besides that, the player with the loosing troops have to consider every time, is it wise to let my soldiers retreat, or is it better to let them fight to there end?

[Lewin]

This would change KaM battles a lot, I don't think it will ever be done as the default mode, but maybe it can be an option/mutator. So troops that aren't in combat can be split off and retreat, but the ones that are in combat must stay like they currently do. I don't know whether that would really work though.

[Ben]

Again, I must say that I don't like this. Not one bit. Yes, yes, you may say that "KaM is such a realistic game" but there are many aspects of the game that are *not* realistic!
Such as:
1) Every building has it's entrance facing the same way
2) All buildings must have a stone road leading to them: ridiculous. Middle Age towns could never afford such expensive roads
3) Units magically appear out of the schoolhouse
4) People can survive solely on wine, fish, sausage, or bread
5) There are no women in the game
6) The sun stands still: there is no night
7) Tress and other vegetation grow at a miraculous rate
8) People "vaporize" upon their demise

Some of these are minor, but it still supports the fact that KaM is not without it's own "unrealism." However, I will admit that KaM is supports more realistic gameplay than most other RTS games, but all games must respect that they are games not real life. For example, would you really want it to take twenty years of gameplay for your trees to grow? Of course not. There has to be a line for the realism to stop. In this instance, soldiers shouldn't be able to retreat. I mean, there are no walls in KaM. In there place are soldiers. If you could retreat, than your soldiers could "flee" into an enemy base. I agree with Krom: it takes more tactics when you can't retreat. And don't tell me that you don't enjoy the heart-pounding anxiety you get right before a game-deciding conflict is about to happen!

[Shadaoe]

4) People can survive solely on wine, fish, sausage, or bread

That might actually be possible :p

[Ben]

Alright, you be the test subject for that
I see that i was rather unclear: I meant that they can JUST eat sausage and live. Or just wine or just bread etc.
But that's off topic.

[Krom]

Sorry, I just can't resist without mentioning: there are now WCs even.

On-topic: KaM has it's own realism, with all the mentioned aspects plus a lot more. The thing is - these rules are made to make the game more balanced and entertaining and more tactic, which is good

[FeyBart]

I'm really not in favor of the proposed feature. It was put in with a reason; to make sure you use your troops wisely, and don't throw them around. Or use hit and run tactics.