Pease provide us with a "no retreat to hostile territory" game option

[DesertSnow]

It's not really something we can make modable, I'm afraid. Besides, if we made retreat into hostile territory impossible Xenophon's ghost would haunt us for all time

Well, he didn't haunt you for allowing this in the HoI series, did he?

Plus, there are other flaws in the existing system. It is ridiculous for a large army to not be able to retreat to a friendly province, because a 1000-man brigade has started occupying it. Imagine this:
French general: men, the Germans are hitting us hard. We will retreat to Cologne.
French soldier: isn't Cologne in German hands, while there is a level-3 fort there?
French general: Yes, but there are no enemy armies there.
French soldier: Sure, but retreating to the German interior will rapidly kill us from attrition. Wouldn't it be wiser to retreat to Alsace? It is owned and occupied by us, plus it is heavily protected by forts. Thus, our 50-brigade army will be able to recover there.
French general: We can't retreat to Alsace. The HQ informed me that an army of 1,000 angry Germans have arrived there and are laying siege to the province...
French soldier: 1000 men? You can't be serious. We are 50,000.
French general: I can't break the game rules. Off to Cologne!

I love the game, but I consider this situation irrational (and gamey, since it allows a human player to easily destroy huge stacks of enemy soldiers). I have a self-imposed rule of not sending 1-brigade armies to encircle enemy hordes, but I would cry out "Θάλαττα! Θάλαττα" (the sea! the sea!) if paradox made some adjustments.

 

[Jazumir]

Wow. I wrote pretty much the same post a loooong time ago, resembling #21 down to the point of the mock-up conversation. So, yeah, how do they say?
+1

I sort of find it ironic, that in a Vic2-WW1, armies can retreat through the enemy´s positions. If there ever was a war, among the thousands and thousands of wars in human history, where such a thing would never be imaginable, it would be WW1, i´d say...
Maybe it should be possible under certain circumstances (like a pure irregular engagement, maybe, or when a frontage is less than half covered, of whatnot), but it certainly shouldnt be the universal rule, esp. late game.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Warfare in V2 is total crap, it has been that way since the release. The way maneuvers, battles, navies and "sieges" (WHAT THE HELL??) were designed is totally not my cup of tea.

That's why I purged the game from my HD. And I'm not getting this expansion either.

I know it's not supposed to be a war game, but wars are a part of it and it was 10x more fun in Vic1. I actually enjoyed the war part of the game in Vic1. Not so in this game.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

You seriously couldn't mod it in? Units must only be able to move into certain regions that have a variable that qualifies it as being NOT water right? You can't retreat into water unless transports are there. Is there no way you could turn enemy territory into 'water' for movement purposes during retreats?

As a modder who has done actual tweaking of map adjacencies and such, I can say that no, can't be done. Unless you h4x0r the actual .exe file, which Paradox doesn't permit and few of us would have the skillz for anyway.

What can be done is to determine, before a game starts, which areas count as water and which count as land. You cannot change the terrain type of a province mid-way during the game. Well, except for canals, and they have to be fired via event, they aren't something that can be made to automatically instantly happen when certain conditions are met.

 

[Phystarstk]

Warfare in V2 is total crap, it has been that way since the release. The way maneuvers, battles, navies and "sieges" (WHAT THE HELL??) were designed is totally not my cup of tea.

That's why I purged the game from my HD. And I'm not getting this expansion either.

I know it's not supposed to be a war game, but wars are a part of it and it was 10x more fun in Vic1. I actually enjoyed the war part of the game in Vic1. Not so in this game.

Yeah, I've been back and forth on getting the expansion, but, if there is no hope for war to become interesting, I don't know that I'll get it. Maybe when it's super cheap on some GG sale or something...

 

[unmerged(38835)]

I agree with the OP and "Desert Snow". At least armies should not be able to retreat to the province they have been attacked from.
If it cannot be made moddable, is there a way to make it a gameplay option in a future patch?

 

[unmerged(160565)]

Still bugs the crap out of me when an a nation build a massive army and then breaks it up (or however they do it) and sends a swarm of 3000men units into every piece of occupied territory I am holding and into my nation instead of actually fighting leaving my nation to ravage their capital or whatnot. I feel like im hunting down rebels, having to pull my armies back every month or two to hunt down a bunch of fresh from the training ground troops. I know its a legit tatic but EVERY NATION DOES IT. I would atleast like to see some variation in military tatics from nation to nation.

apart from that I would be HAPPY more then happy EXTATIC to go out and buy a expansion to Vic II that focused completly on the combat system.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

The combat model in all the Paradox games remains badly broken, mostly because of simple, idiotic design decisions such as this one. It makes NO SENSE for a defeated army to retreat deeper into hostile territory, away from its base of supply. So Lee loses at Gettysburg and decides to retreat to New York?!!? WTF?!!?

This shouldn't be hard to fix: If a defeated army can't retreat to a owned or allied territory, then it is eliminated. Simple as that. Why they won't fix it is beyond me. They certainly could if they wanted to.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

It's not really something we can make modable, I'm afraid. Besides, if we made retreat into hostile territory impossible Xenophon's ghost would haunt us for all time

If you can't make it modable, then can you fix it?

After all, Xenophon lived 2300 years before the era depicted in this game. Not sure he should be the model here.

 

[Rangergxi]

Regards to Nuetal issues:

WW1 guys, the whole reason Britain went into ww1 was because Belgium refused German access through Belgium and Germany attacked.
This is just how the game works and it is accurate.

 

[Darkrenown]

If you can't make it modable, then can you fix it?

After all, Xenophon lived 2300 years before the era depicted in this game. Not sure he should be the model here.

Xenophon's army was certainly the only one in history to do this, not just a famous example.

It's incredibly simple to prevent: Have units in neighbouring provinces. I'm not sure why you feel an army should prefer mass-suicide to retreating into an unguarded enemy province, but it's not something we're going to "fix".

 

[Orinsul]

if you couldnt retreat into hostile territory, wouldnt that makes things worse? Then you couldnt send an army straight for paris, as if it lost a battle on the way itd be wiped out in one go despite being surrounded by empty french provinces. basically youd have to go province siege by province siege, only one strategy instead of many options.
Itd be better to always default to friendly territory if it outnumbers the enemy troops in the only friendly territory.
Go for a middle ground rather than jump from one extreme to another. Not no retreat to hostile territory, but no stupid retreats into hostile territory when friendly territory is an option and retreat to hostile territory if its the best option.

 

[Andrelvis]

It's not really something we can make modable, I'm afraid. Besides, if we made retreat into hostile territory impossible Xenophon's ghost would haunt us for all time

Not moddable perhaps, but it would be possible as a game option. All that is needed to be done is when the "movement time" to transfer the unit into the province being retreated to has elapsed, making it so that the function that actually moves the unit from one province to the other checks to see if the option is enabled AND if the unit is retreating. If true, kill off the unit if the province is enemy territory. If false, move the unit as normal, even into hostile territory.

 

[Kalelovil]

I propose the following compromise:

Units should always prefer to retreat to friendly territory.
If there is no other territory to retreat to, units will retreat to enemy territory but will have a significantly slower movement rate when doing so.

(Unless, of course, that is the way the game currently works)

 

[Iguanaonastick]

Darkrenown: I believe the point was that the -player- can prevent the issue, but the AI can't. I think that's a valid problem.

Everyone: What -does- make the AI decide which retreat route to take, anyway? I've never detected rhyme nor reason to it, but surely there's some kind of algorithm? Does anybody know it?

And how do you all think an intelligent retreat algorithm should work, if it were changeable? A simple one that comes to mind is to make armies retreat to the province with the highest supply limit. That'd mean they'd most likely retreat to friendly provinces, or hostile provinces that are in the process of being occupied by a friendly army. (Those have a higher supply limit I notice, though maybe just because of tech?) Very simple, but I think it'd achieve most of the goals here.

 

[DesertSnow]

Darkrenown: I believe the point was that the -player- can prevent the issue, but the AI can't. I think that's a valid problem.

Exactly. This is not a "I want the HoI2-HoI3 combat system because it alloes WWI-style warfare" thread (I have done that in the past, as well).

I can live with hunting retreating armies in the interior of my country. My problem is AI performance. a) Being able to retreat to hostile territory while b) not being able to retreat to a friendly, occupied province if JUST 1,000 men have started to occupy it are severely crippling the AI. Couldn't you at least make changes to one of them?

By the way, when was the last time anyone saw the AI moving through enemy provinces with the intention of capturing the enemy capital? As far as I know, the AI only retreats when it is defeated, while the retreating armies choose to occupy the province they find themselves into. Xenophon's army had a goal, the Aegean sea. Yes, they had to move through hostile territory. But they went West to the sea, not east to India. The perofrmance of the AI remind me of the fate of the Sicelian campaign during the second phase of the peloponesian war, not the strategy of Xenophon's army.

Important note: I have not yet played AHD, so my impressions on the AI's performance are based on V2.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

I'm not sure why you feel an army should prefer mass-suicide to retreating into an unguarded enemy province, but it's not something we're going to "fix".

Because "retreating" deeper into enemy territory during the era depicted virtually NEVER happened. And what the army "prefers" is irrelevant. We're talking about DEFEATED armies here. All armies "prefer" to win, but some don't. And when they don't they have only limited choices. Especially if their general is stupid enough to maneuver them into a location where they have no line of retreat.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

if you couldnt retreat into hostile territory, wouldnt that makes things worse? Then you couldnt send an army straight for paris, as if it lost a battle on the way itd be wiped out in one go despite being surrounded by empty french provinces. basically youd have to go province siege by province siege, only one strategy instead of many options.

But that's the point. You should NOT be able to just march halfway across Europe, straight toward Paris, never stopping to secure a line of retreat, lose and then just march back through enemy territory the way you came. That's not a "strategy." It's fantasy.

 

[Olaf the Unsure]

My problem is AI performance. a) Being able to retreat to hostile territory while b) not being able to retreat to a friendly, occupied province if JUST 1,000 men have started to occupy it are severely crippling the AI. Couldn't you at least make changes to one of them?

Exactly right. There are four kinds of territory from the perspective of defeated/retreating armies: (1) friendly/allied owned, (2) friendly/allied controlled (i.e., "cross-hatched" enemy territory after a successful siege), (3) friendly/allied occupied (i.e., enemy territory currently under siege) and (4) enemy owned (i.e., no friendly/allied troops present and still completely under enemy ownership). All I'm proposing is that defeated armies not retreat into the very last category - enemy owned. That still would leave them plenty of options, except when they get truly cornered (either by a brilliant enemy or a stupid friendly commander).

And I agree that the "ring of pawns" should not be an AI-killer. The determining factor should be whether the territory is enemy owned or not.

 

[Evans]

Xenophon's army was certainly the only one in history to do this, not just a famous example.

It's incredibly simple to prevent: Have units in neighbouring provinces. I'm not sure why you feel an army should prefer mass-suicide to retreating into an unguarded enemy province, but it's not something we're going to "fix".

As has been said the AI doesn't do it. Another reason to do it is that ensuring you have units in these positions increases the micromanagement. Another reason is that if you rout an enemy, they shouldn't be able to slip by you to the province(s) from which you attacked. I'd be happy enough if that was prevented tbh. I'd accept the argument that you need a lot of forces across the front to create a front, or to have the ability to pin down your enemy by denying them freedom of movement - but when you do this only to find that the enemy subsequently just flanks you through neutral terrain it really takes the piss. Taking on board what you and others have said I agree with an earlier poster that Military Access is probably the bigger annoyance.