AGEOD Forums

Just curious how retreating works. Just had a disastrous series of events in a first-play through as Romans in First Punic War. Moved major Roman army of 60,000 or so along coast and had a battle with about 70,000 Carthaginians. The battle was a draw but since I was outnumbered and took heavier losses I decided to move back to where I had come from. Both sides had equivalent cavalry and were supplied and had almost the same values of commanders (Roman general was a three attack and the Carthaginian general had a four defense. Weather was fair and terrain was hills.

Lo and behold, despite trying to move away, each turn ended with a battle and the Romans stayed put. Three months and three battles later, and with the losses of about ten national morale points total, the Romans finally made it back whence they had come.

From what I know of ancient and medieval history, battles usually took place because both sides decided to fight. Otherwise, barring one side or the other having a huge disparity in cavalry, one side could just march away.

The enemy army had offensive stance, good recon and probably a better leader. So, before you were able to move away the enemy attacked and maybe routed you, sending your retreat plans to hell

HanBarca wrote:The enemy army had offensive stance, good recon and probably a better leader. So, before you were able to move away the enemy attacked and maybe routed you, sending your retreat plans to hell

Well, all I know is that thirty thousand of my men suddenly found themselves riding alone in green fields with the sun in their faces. No matter - the war goes on! SPQR will triumph over the bloodthirsty sons of Baal!

This is something that I've also been thinking occasionally. Reading ancient sources and modern studies, it is definitely true that combat mostly occurred only when both sides wanted it to occur. It took a long time to form a large army for battle, and if the other side didn't want to stay and fight, they could always leave the potential battlefield, unless there was something that prevented them from doing so. It also seems to have been rather common that two armies were in full battle formation for several days and entered into a sort of a staring contest, with some skirmishing and small scale actions, but no actual pitched battle, until one side decided to move on for some reason, like lack of supplies.

AJE scenarios usually have many more battles taking place than in real life. For example in the First Punic War, there were only a few major battles during the 23 or so years of war. In AJE, you often have several major and bloody battles in a single year. I understand this can be explained by gameplay reasons, ie. to make the game more exciting, and players and AI being more aggressive and careless than historical commanders, but I wonder if another reason for this is the mechanics of the game, like actual chances of avoiding battle when you don't want to fight.

I think it is the mechanics of the game. I think the system is more suited to modern warfare, where you have longer range weapons and higher mobility. Ancient armies and medieval armies could commonly just march away when they didn't want to fight. Unless they had their retreat blocked or absolutely had to stand in place for political reasons. But in AJE you get "stuck" in these multiple extended engagements that last months even when you are desperately trying to march away. Just doesn't feel right - it feels more like 19th and 20th century combat.

PJJ wrote:This is something that I've also been thinking occasionally. Reading ancient sources and modern studies, it is definitely true that combat mostly occurred only when both sides wanted it to occur. It took a long time to form a large army for battle, and if the other side didn't want to stay and fight, they could always leave the potential battlefield, unless there was something that prevented them from doing so. It also seems to have been rather common that two armies were in full battle formation for several days and entered into a sort of a staring contest, with some skirmishing and small scale actions, but no actual pitched battle, until one side decided to move on for some reason, like lack of supplies.

AJE scenarios usually have many more battles taking place than in real life. For example in the First Punic War, there were only a few major battles during the 23 or so years of war. In AJE, you often have several major and bloody battles in a single year. I understand this can be explained by gameplay reasons, ie. to make the game more exciting, and players and AI being more aggressive and careless than historical commanders, but I wonder if another reason for this is the mechanics of the game, like actual chances of avoiding battle when you don't want to fight.

I always play with the "Delayed commitment" option on the longest setting for this reason.

Ebbingford wrote:I always play with the "Delayed commitment" option on the longest setting for this reason.

So do I. But it doesn't eliminate the problem of having way too many major battles occur within a short period of time. I have never even tried playing with less severe commitment settings.