"Retreat from combat" option

  • I would like to suggest the option to be able to retreat your units from combat.


    How it works:

    - When your units are in combat, you have the new option "retreat".

    - Unlike "move" command, when you select "retreat" your units will stop fighting, and will have to wait for the next enemy attack(s), already in progress, to resolve.

    - After you suffer the last hit from the enemy units, your army will detach from combat and continue the movement.

    - Enemy units what were engaged in combat should be stopped for a while (5 minutes for example) so the retreating armies can actually escape and make a distance from them, in case enemy units also had the order to move in the same direction.


    What do you think?

  • You suggestion have a lot more factors to consider.

    1 we're they fight mine or his lands? if mine I move fast of course and can escape.

    2 his lands with small timer your army is directly again in melee .

    3. a lot ppl like get a inactive in melee and hit them there arty so for them is bad.

    4. good player won't be in melee so don't need retreat, they already if go to sleep what to do to be safe

    So from my point we don't need retreat

    Enforcer(Angel of Death)b78//+

  • Hi Bobokil, thanks for the reply.


    (2) Yeah, good point about taking into consideration the owner of the territorry.

    True, if for example, you attack his bunker, and you decide that you need to retreat, he can catch you up, but he will need to move outside of his bunker for that. So not every situation in enemy territorry is hopeless. Also, enemy player must actually issue order to move his armies to chase you, which will not happen always.


    (3) Sorry i don't quite understand this :-/


    (4) Yeah, but you can't always look from the point of view of good players. New players also must be given a chance to play this game, and to correct their mistakes. Otherwise, new players will just say "stupid game" and quit. It's important to attract new players. Most of my games that i play is already a graveyard of inactive players...

  • Newbies if they want to win a game they need learn it. Learning is make mistakes to. I remember my first map a 30 tutorial map. I had 2 FM in that left 1 city and we're killing 1 unit spammed in that city till I went inactive they did. I call it wow I got bulled? no I only bad luck to have in a tutorial map. Joined a other map that was it.I failed a lot to till I learn what I need to do. If check my KDA will see I am 3.00 against player. Why can't newbies not do that? they can but are they doing every time I see newbie they think have more game skill then you even if just joined. Why is that because did 1 hit and run and got 1 time why you we're not even online. After come online and AC there lands because left everything open is your fail or there? then start cry is gm is gm and not use 1 in that map only because more mech units then them and so on. Newbies if they listen to good player can kill a gm spammer easy, but most think they have same skill some plays for year they game. This game a option not even be 24/24 online and win 100% every war you are fighting only be using skill .Every map I play alwalys try to not kill newbies and even let join my coalition that map. Some of them even don't attack him or move army there not even do that, if they do it they 100% win that map and learn they game little by little what I show them.


    So my point I don't need retreat.

    Enforcer(Angel of Death)b78//+

  • I think its a great idea. On your last point (with your force retreating and the enemy force advancing) maybe they could stay in combat mode (normal dice roll every 60 minutes with A:D ratio) but the combat can move at reduced rate. So lets say two forces (fA and fB) meet between province A and B and and fB wants to retreat while fA wants to press province B. I think fA and fB should stay in combat but move toward province B. This could be used to bait into arty, RG, or BS fire.

  • I think its a great idea. On your last point (with your force retreating and the enemy force advancing) maybe they could stay in combat mode (normal dice roll every 60 minutes with A:D ratio) but the combat can move at reduced rate. So lets say two forces (fA and fB) meet between province A and B and and fB wants to retreat while fA wants to press province B. I think fA and fB should stay in combat but move toward province B. This could be used to bait into arty, RG, or BS fire.

    Alright, but then what happens if the other army chooses to retreat as well? The battle just ends and everyone goes home?

    While I see some use for a retreat option (which is also more than a dead horse at this point, by the way), it should certainly not come for free. Previous discussions often included the idea of a severe morale penalty to the retreating army as they scamper with their tails between their legs. They could also, quite realistically, suffer major, unconstested losses in their "retreat tick" as covering a retreat, when you have your back against the enemy, is a really difficult thing to do. Afterall, the army you just swung by to harrass and then bolt would have an interest in not letting you get away so easily.

    I don't believe you're ever going to see this option though and the reason is quite frankly that it would change the entire basis of Supremacy1914's gameplay. The fact that units get locked into battle is a fundamental aspect of the combat mechanics not only concerning their calculations but also the player's approach. It puts a further emphasis on planning and preparing rather than just executing to know that your troops will be committed to an altercation once you send them in. The entire combat system would chance very, very deeply by adding a retreat option and I do believe it would change to a point outside of what would be considered tolerable to most players and the company providing the gameplay.

  • You know, a lot of answer shutting down new ideas seem to be players who've been around and just don't want the game to change. Not having a retreat option makes the game less dynamic. I know good players like to know their forces will lock in with lesser players and make their take over easier, but it is just not as dynamic as having the option to retreat from a failed attack. Of course there can be penalties for it in morale, even bonus for the none retreating army.


    The battle just ends and everyone goes home?

    Yeah... actually that would be exactly what would happen in a real battle wouldn't it?


    which is also more than a dead horse at this point, by the way

    This perspective is ridiculous. Why even have this section of the forums then? If everything is just "beating a dead horse" when players want to make realistic, dynamic game play changes to an outdated (yet amazing) game then why even have this forum? Just get rid of it.. stop looking in it if the game is perfect the way you like it. Even with clunky mechanics that don't let you utilize dynamic techniques that were available even before WW1. You can't call this a true tactical RTS without having true tactical options.

  • This perspective is ridiculous. Why even have this section of the forums then? If everything is just "beating a dead horse" when players want to make realistic, dynamic game play changes to an outdated (yet amazing) game then why even have this forum? Just get rid of it.. stop looking in it if the game is perfect the way you like it. Even with clunky mechanics that don't let you utilize dynamic techniques that were available even before WW1. You can't call this a true tactical RTS without having true tactical options.


    You don't? I'd say you do, but an entire army of 50.000 soldiers dug into trenches just packing up shop and hightailing outta there happens to not be one. That's a thing you can plan around. And going down the "true tactical options" road is really futile anyway. There's always gonna be a next tactical option that was used back then but isn't in the game. And a next, and a next. This is, at its core, a casual game and not meant to be a combat micromanager to that extent.

    And while it's true that I personally wouldn't want this dynamic and, as the glitchmaster himself has already pointed out it exists via bugs already that you're free to exploit to your heart's desire, my main point of saying that is that if there was any realistic chance of this being added to the game, it probably would have happened at some point within the last ten years which is about the time since this has been brought up the first time. Hell, they probably would have added it right at 1.0, but they chose not to for fundamental reasons. I explained above how embedded the lack of a retreat option is into the way the gameplay of this game functions. Changing it would be a little like adding another piece to the game of chess: Sure you could do it but what seems like a minor change would cause ripples that would eventually wind you up with a completely different game. This isn't a little tweak that's being proposed, it is in its effect a fundamental overhaul of the entire way this game works. I'm not sure you guys understand that.

  • I think the key here is to learn how much forces to commit. What I like to do is put some on the frontline and reinforce when needed. Therefore I can always retreat with the troops I have not yet committed to the melee. I would consider the fact that there is no retreat option a gameplay mechanic, where I try not to get bogged down by my oponent and try to bog down my oponents main army in an advantages position for myself.

  • not sure how you guys play but with legacy mode and mouse it is very easy to do multum of tricks including withdrawal from the fight or getting into melee fight and still not attacking melee opponent.


    in short- everything is possible if you are precise enough to pull off maneuvers.

  • The feature has been suggested. the main issues are how to implement the idea and how to balance/prevent exploiting.

    However one must consider that making a full retreat can cause greater loses because your enemy can cut off and retreats or keep your force fighting preventing such a full retreat. its all neat in theory but chaos rules the battlefield which the players can't control battlefield tactics. There are many outcomes. So to prevent such complex coding it be best just to leave the units kill each other till one survives.

    It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. -Charles Darwin

  • The feature has been suggested. the main issues are how to implement the idea and how to balance/prevent exploiting.

    However one must consider that making a full retreat can cause greater loses because your enemy can cut off and retreats or keep your force fighting preventing such a full retreat. its all neat in theory but chaos rules the battlefield which the players can't control battlefield tactics. There are many outcomes. So to prevent such complex coding it be best just to leave the units kill each other till one survives.

    copy solution which bytro used while creating CON. There is possibility to escape with big casualties . Bytro has code, 5+ years of watching that feature in use millions of times. Simple.

  • This idea seems good but I don't think that we need this kind of feature. You only think of this feature when you are losing fight and according to my view it's better to let them die there.

    (4) Yeah, but you can't always look from the point of view of good players. New players also must be given a chance to play this game, and to correct their mistakes. Otherwise, new players will just say "stupid game" and quit. It's important to attract new players. Most of my games that i play is already a graveyard of inactive players...

    how this feature can give a chance to new players to correct their mistakes?

    Thing is everyone need to learn how much force they need to commit for melee and they need to learn a tactic called strategical withdrawal.


    If you want to stop new players from quitting this game then stop killing them in their first match and train them. I have came so far on my own no was there to train me I still remember my first game all were new players and that was the only game I saw in which only new players were there and more than 20 players were active.

    For a moment think what if a user who spends thousands of gm start using this feature he can retreat his army and will use gm to heal his army and then will come back for attack. What will you do in that case? Slowly everyone will lose interest due to those players.

    I think its a great idea. On your last point (with your force retreating and the enemy force advancing) maybe they could stay in combat mode (normal dice roll every 60 minutes with A:D ratio) but the combat can move at reduced rate. So lets say two forces (fA and fB) meet between province A and B and and fB wants to retreat while fA wants to press province B. I think fA and fB should stay in combat but move toward province B. This could be used to bait into arty, RG, or BS fire.

    but still they are in combat aren't they? close combat works by locking army movements.

  • You know, a lot of answer shutting down new ideas seem to be players who've been around and just don't want the game to change. Not having a retreat option makes the game less dynamic.

    ^^ Not shutting down suggestions, only ask the newbie players to first learn the game mechanics before asking for an "EASY BUTTON", for a 10+ year old game why fix what is NOT broken? When you have been in S1914 a bit longer you come to the realization that with each "FIX from Bytro" you then have 2 more glitches you have to adapt to...

    Embrace your true nature , enjoy games and have fun!