Those fleeing armies... WTFWTFWTFWTWF

[eduhum]

I never understood very much when my armies loose a battle they have to flee to a random province…
I decided to make a thread asking why is this like that when I lost a battle as Aragon to France in Pirineos (battle that it was 12000
against 14000 french and I f***ing lost half my men in defensive position in mountains (how the french can be so OP??). The case is,
my troops fled all the way into Palermo crossing all france and italy. When arrived, only 100 horsemen were left.
Is this meant to be historical??

 

[anomalacaris]

There are thousands of threads about this..
And another thousands about why they are losing battles without presenting even 50% of required information to determine the outcome of battles.

Ok sorry about grunting, but yeah this is not very historical, but is designed, in your case, to help you. If it only flee one province, you will just get ping-pong destroyed, while now you have a chance to recover. However it does sometimes flee too far and too irrationally.

 

[Rya]

I never understood very much when my armies loose a battle they have to flee to a random province…
I decided to make a thread asking why is this like that when I lost a battle as Aragon to France in Pirineos (battle that it was 12000
against 14000 french and I f***ing lost half my men in defensive position in mountains (how the french can be so OP??). The case is,
my troops fled all the way into Palermo crossing all france and italy. When arrived, only 100 horsemen were left.
Is this meant to be historical??

Is this the start of the game or very close? Then the answer is French generals. They can destroy everything.

 

[jovialbard]

I'm okay with the fleeing thing, you wouldn't have control of a fleeing army, and fleeing armies often make irrational decisions. The part I find annoying is that if you want to catch up to a fleeing army to finish them off you have to go to the final province that they are headed for, you can't intercept them, which also often means that they've gained morale back and you'll have another fight on your hands. Silly. Oh well, I guess it does give you the chance to recover if you were the one routed, and I do appreciate that. I also like how this approach stops the silly ping-pong game. I notice much less ping-pong in eu4, and that's good.

 

[grommile]

The part I find annoying is that if you want to catch up to a fleeing army to finish them off you have to go to the final province that they are headed for, you can't intercept them, which also often means that they've gained morale back and you'll have another fight on your hands.

That is deliberate. It was very, very easy to destroy someone's army in EU3; in EU4 it takes some actual effort.

 

[londoner247]

There should still be some limits on where they will run to. Seeing a Spanish army flee from Antwerp all the way through (hostile) France to get down to the Mediterranean Coast of Spain is ludicrous.

 

[Viking]

Recent epic anabasis style retreats for me include Cuzco to Buenos Aires via Venezuala and Fez to Constantinopel.

This mechanic needs some tweaking.

 

[ImTheSheep]

Just imagine the hilariousness of army retreating from Fez to Constantinople: The army loses the battle for Fez in the year 1508 and goes to that shattered retreat, about a two months later they are still retreating in terror and complete disorder around Cairo while the peasants are asking the soldiers: why are you running in a panic, you are in friendly territory now and there is no enemy chasing you! The soldiers just can't answer since they are still completely disheartened and in complete panic due to loss that occurred about thousand kilometers and two months ago :rofl::rofl:

 

[Lamahorse]

As for losing battles; take Offensive ideas and you start to win more.

 

[Mauer]

I would prefer it if armies didn't retreat as far as they do now, but the winning side also got increased exhaustion, so if they start chasing the enemy right away and meet them they have impaired stats and winning isn't as easy as if they had rested more.

 

[AdmRepublic]

If you choose to retreat with your army before you lose, you can choose the destination yourself. I find this to be incredibly powerful -- the army can move back to safety across a very long distance.

 

[dstarsboy]

If you choose to retreat with your army before you lose, you can choose the destination yourself. I find this to be incredibly powerful -- the army can move back to safety across a very long distance.

Exactly, most of the time you know if you're going to lose a battle long before it's over and instead of losing a crap load of manpower simply take the WS hit and retreat to the province of your choice so you can regroup and engage again.

 

[Breyer]

There are thousands of threads about this..
And another thousands about why they are losing battles without presenting even 50% of required information to determine the outcome of battles.

Ok sorry about grunting, but yeah this is not very historical, but is designed, in your case, to help you. If it only flee one province, you will just get ping-pong destroyed, while now you have a chance to recover. However it does sometimes flee too far and too irrationally.

Actually, its quite historical. Many armies were taken captive and released on the condition that they march back home and not fight again for a set period of time, or march back without arms.

 

[AnguyTheArcher]

There should be a limit how far can an army retreat. 3-4 provinces would be nice. At least it would mean an end to all those ping pong battles.

 

[AnguyTheArcher]

There should be a limit how far can an army retreat. 3-4 provinces would be nice. At least it would mean an end to all those ping pong battles.

 

[BBBD316]

My preference would be the army is destroyed, however a portion of the troops would then start to reform close to the capital or a major city away from the front lines, just to simulate the breakdown of the army and those survivors making to another barracks and being brought back together.

 

[sgt.stickybomb]

there are alot of factors that affect battle outcome: size, morale, pips, generals, luck, terrain, army composition, tech, combat width, etc... having most of these in your favor is a good way to win a battle
about the multiprovince retreat...... well it is paradox's answer to pingponging, you might disagree with it but it works.

 

[Incompetent]

Just imagine the hilariousness of army retreating from Fez to Constantinople: The army loses the battle for Fez in the year 1508 and goes to that shattered retreat, about a two months later they are still retreating in terror and complete disorder around Cairo while the peasants are asking the soldiers: why are you running in a panic, you are in friendly territory now and there is no enemy chasing you! The soldiers just can't answer since they are still completely disheartened and in complete panic due to loss that occurred about thousand kilometers and two months ago :rofl::rofl:

The funniest fleeing experience to me was when I fought France in the north, while France owned the province of Venice as an isolated exclave. Who'd have thought naval superiority could be so decisive in a land war

 

[sgt.stickybomb]

Just imagine the hilariousness of army retreating from Fez to Constantinople: The army loses the battle for Fez in the year 1508 and goes to that shattered retreat, about a two months later they are still retreating in terror and complete disorder around Cairo while the peasants are asking the soldiers: why are you running in a panic, you are in friendly territory now and there is no enemy chasing you! The soldiers just can't answer since they are still completely disheartened and in complete panic due to loss that occurred about thousand kilometers and two months ago :rofl::rofl:

you can never be too sure...

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

... Fez to Constantinopel ...

Wat! :wacko: