Fort Retreat Survival --> call for discussion

[NTJedi]

cleveland said:
Apparently, units defending a stormed fortress survive if they retreat from the battle.

This seems unthematic to me. I'm curious to know what the community thinks.

Should fort defenders - who otherwise couldn't leave the besieged fortress, and would die if retreating during a sally - survive if they retreat when the fortress is stormed?

It basically comes down to the game not being complex enough to cover whether or not units can retreat. The game would have to include other features such as:
1) A hidden escape tunnel (possible new structure or spell)
2) Retreating units would need to fight enemy units patrolling the castle. Basically the units would start the battle already routing and need to run past the patrollers.
3) Some castles depending on terrain could also make retreat impossible... a sort of "Helms Deep" with no tunnels. It would be wrong to assume all castles have no way of retreat.
4) An in-game formula which has a percentage of those retreating disappear from wild animals, being lost, loss of faith, etc,. .
5) Retreating via boat if one of the commanders has sailing and water provinces are nearby thus reaching friendly province(s) across water.

In any case this discussion should wait until the beginning of development for DOM_4... we're not going to see a code change this late in the game.

cleveland said:

They aren't dying, they're surrendering.

Only in our recent modern history does surrendering exist with a happy ending. I don't think any troops would be willing to surrender to late age ERMOR or middle age C'Tis and other such nations.
If late age ERMOR won the castle you were patrolling... and you surrendered... they would instantly turn you undead to make sure you wouldn't surrender again.

[cleveland]

@ NTJedi
I'm a bit confused. Do you:
(A) agree with me that routed defenders SHOULD NOT survive,
or
(B) disagree with me, arguing instead that routed defenders SHOULD survive, as is currently the case

[NTJedi]

cleveland said:
@ NTJedi
I'm a bit confused. Do you:
(A) agree with me that routed defenders SHOULD NOT survive,
or
(B) disagree with me, arguing instead that routed defenders SHOULD survive, as is currently the case

I believe routed defenders should not survive if the game had additional programming to provide scenarios creating valuable strategies to the game. Such as patrollers would have a second battle screen where routed units run past them.

It's definitely a good game suggestion, let's hope Illwinter is inspired to create a Dominions_4 where a more realistic scene of troops routing can exist which would increase strategic gameplay.

[Micah]

Just cap the adjacent provinces if you want to kill off the defenders, if you can't manage that your army doesn't really control the field enough to justify a complete elimination of the defenders.

[Gregstrom]

Conventions of war:

There were some conventions of war as far back as the Crusades and possibly before. They weren't always applied, though. In some cases in the crusades, defenders of a castle were converted at swordpoint and then released (the conversion didn't stick, oddly enough, and the soldiers in question probably went home and joined their army again).

[cleveland]

Micah said:
Just cap the adjacent provinces if you want to kill off the defenders, if you can't manage that your army doesn't really control the field enough to justify a complete elimination of the defenders.

Following that line of reasoning, why then can't a defender freely reinforce/evacuate an unsurrounded fortress?

[thejeff]

Because during the battle there is chaos and confusion, mostly clustered around the gates. And afterwards, the invaders are busy looting the city. Either way no one notices a few stragglers fleeing.

During the siege, the attackers are spread out camped around the castle, watching for attacks and reinforcements.

[cleveland]

thejeff said:
Either way no one notices a few stragglers fleeing.

By the current rules of the game, I can set my entire besieged army to "retreat" and suffer zero casualties when my fort is finally stormed.

Try it for yourself: create a 1000-strong army of undead (mindless, thereby reducing the time till the fort is reduced), stash them in a fort, and siege it. When the walls are breached, retreat your entire army. EVERY single troop will survive.

This should unsettle every member of this community: in a game were every strategy has a cost, there is essentially no risk to defending a threatened fortress. When an enemy army approaches your fort, the ONLY intelligent thing to do is to stay put. If the province is captured, teleport in a few supply items, sit back, and collect your gems while your defenders delay your opponent's advance. When they eventually manage to break through the walls, retreat your entire army, and fight another day.

Thus, from the offensive perspective, fort sieging & storming is a fool's errand, as your opponent risks nothing, while you pay the opportunity cost to siege.

But, if the defender is instead forced to consider the annihilation of his fort defenders...well, I'll say that some very interesting strategic situations will arise, and that's what we paid for, right?