withdraw from combat

[Gweeedo]

1) Allowing the Defender to pull his surviving forces back, giving up the contested territ.
2) Allowing the attacker to withdraw from Combat before losing all his units while using the Auto assault button.


Defending Army has the option to withdraw once his force size reaches a designated (by controlling player) number.
Attacking Army, having the option to withdraw from Combat once his army size reaches designated number.

Allowing players to drop a number onto the Auto assault button; this number would represent the force reduction an individual army has to lose before that army can withdraw from battle.
Defending Army would automatically retreat to adjacent terit that has the largest amount of friendly units, ties would be sent to random adjacent friendly controlled terit.

Allowing (or not) the assault (Non-auto assault) button to be used in preventing defender withdrawing from combat.

This might give the game of Risk a different feel, possibly making it feel like a real War game?
Regardless of the defender withdrawing from battle, I think you should give the attacker the option to withdraw from combat.

[BigBallinStalin]

Uh no. Then you can never kill someone. They can keep withdrawing... until you corner them with more troops then necessary. Sounds like a pain in the ass.

[betiko]

gweedo stop posting rubbish please.

[rhp 1]

I'm not sure if it's a good idea, seems it wouldn't actually work well.. but the theory behind it makes sense... personally I don't like it all that much, but it's not "rubbish"... I realize you just don't like the dude.. that's fine too btw

[FreeFalling123]

yeah both players would have to be there every turn, would be ridiculous

[rhp 1]

maybe you could only withdraw once? and no clue how it would work in fs if @ all

[Gweeedo]

yeah both players would have to be there every turn, would be ridiculous

Not really. Each player could have a box in the game panel, put the magic number in the box.

@BigBallinStalin: No, Don't use the auto assault button, providing the attacker with options as well.
You might attack (using the auto assault button) thinking that the defender might withdraw (in the hopes that he will withdraw). If you do not want him to have a chance to withdraw his forces from battle...don't use the auto assault button.

The amount of units that are lost before retreat would fall subject to all your forces on the board.
Or each player could have one or many Army group boxes for his biggest armies that he might chose to retreat if engaged in combat.

I know that having all your units destroyed in one battle has come up.
Both defender and attacker can place a number in the box.
If the attacker finds his troops reduced to that magic number (the # in the box), he will withdrawal from combat.
I was trying to keep it simple.
I know coding is a bitch.

I think this could work.
I do not have time right now to explain everything.


@betiko: You have a foe button...do you wish for me to explain how to use it properly?
Foeing somebody 6 times a day does not work well. If you want the desired effect...hit the foe button once and leave it alone!
I am sure your understanding of the foe button is limited, just as your inability to devise stratagems for escape (or any game).


For those of you who do not have a closed mind:
I am sorry for not explaining further on this suggestion.
I really thought this would have come up in suggestions before...and shot down.
I did not feel it necessary to elaborate right off the bat, being that it would most likely fall on deaf ears if it had been suggested before.

A suggestion like this would enable players to focus on defensive positions...hard to master.
Might be a bit, too complex for players (betiko) of limited understanding of a simple game...keep it simple.

Get creative.

[BigBallinStalin]

yeah both players would have to be there every turn, would be ridiculous

Not really. Each player could have a box in the game panel, put the magic number in the box.

@BigBallinStalin: No, Don't use the auto assault button, providing the attacker with options as well.
You might attack (using the auto assault button) thinking that the defender might withdraw (in the hopes that he will withdraw). If you do not want him to have a chance to withdraw his forces from battle...don't use the auto assault button.

So.... the reasonable solution for players is to never use the auto-assault unless they want to risk pushing the opponent away. Sounds like a real pain in the ass. 40v30... here goes nothing: attack, attack, attack, attack, zzzzz.

[Gweeedo]

yeah both players would have to be there every turn, would be ridiculous

Not really. Each player could have a box in the game panel, put the magic number in the box.

@BigBallinStalin: No, Don't use the auto assault button, providing the attacker with options as well.
You might attack (using the auto assault button) thinking that the defender might withdraw (in the hopes that he will withdraw). If you do not want him to have a chance to withdraw his forces from battle...don't use the auto assault button.

So.... the reasonable solution for players is to never use the auto-assault unless they want to risk pushing the opponent away. Sounds like a real pain in the ass. 40v30... here goes nothing: attack, attack, attack, attack, zzzzz.

That is part of the beauty of it. You going to spend 30 sec. to manually take out 90 units, or you going for the Objective.
What does it matter; if you are set on taking the guy out..withdrawal is somewhat irrelevant?

Time is irrelevant when implementing a good strategy...you will not even notice, keeping your mind busy.
Having to rethink every move you make.

If you like simple and no thought. Make it a random reaction.
Attacker/Defender withdraw after rolling two sets of snake eyes or box cars...or the consecutive loss of so many units.
Or put a x in the auto assault option, signifying your intent for withdrawal.
Withdrawing from battle would create endless possibilities (strategies, options).

[Gabriel13]

This would completely ruin FS speed games.. Especially esc. Sorry, if I'm about to kill somebody's stack and they can simply reinforce elsewhere, somebody could take my kill, which is stupid. This can already be done anyways. All you have to do is press "e" on the keyboard, and you can reinforce whenever you want. If people could reinforce away before ending attacks, it would take the strategy out of having to attack in a correct path

[Gweeedo]

This would completely ruin FS speed games.. Especially esc. Sorry, if I'm about to kill somebody's stack and they can simply reinforce elsewhere, somebody could take my kill, which is stupid. This can already be done anyways. All you have to do is press "e" on the keyboard, and you can reinforce whenever you want. If people could reinforce away before ending attacks, it would take the strategy out of having to attack in a correct path

I really do not even know how to respond to this.

You are right, it would be a game changer.

The only real difference would be; players (defender, attacker) not having to destroy their entire army to take control of a single terit.
As it stands now, once you hit that auto assault button, it is all or nothing!
Nothing would change on an assault going for an elimination of another player...defender has three terits, you go after all three..what does it matter what terit his main force is in, you take three terits he is eliminated all the same.

If I am not mistaken, Another player can claim your kill in a freestyle game as it is?

it would take the strategy out of having to attack in a correct path

This could enable the defender to change the attackers assault path against the defending army.
Allowing the defender to take advantage of better defensive position.
Attacker has all the advantage in this game. Defender has no options. He just sits back and takes his hits.

The auto assault button is used to save time.
It's use is detrimental much of the time.

This is a very simple concept...not that complex.
Might be too complex for this game.

Might I suggest using this as a attacker only option?
Attacker withdraw from combat...ending his turn.

Example: Attacker 22v34--Attacker presses the auto assault button (has 11 units placed in the auto assault button) OOPS, Attacker has just been reduced to 11 units...attacker turn has ended.

Ending the attackers turn is to appease the defender...not giving any advantage to the attacker.
Place, mark units in box...what ever.

In the above example the attacker lost 11 defender lost one...ending the attack, 11to33

Being forced to lose all your units with one push of a button is not nice.

[BigBallinStalin]

yeah both players would have to be there every turn, would be ridiculous

Not really. Each player could have a box in the game panel, put the magic number in the box.

@BigBallinStalin: No, Don't use the auto assault button, providing the attacker with options as well.
You might attack (using the auto assault button) thinking that the defender might withdraw (in the hopes that he will withdraw). If you do not want him to have a chance to withdraw his forces from battle...don't use the auto assault button.

So.... the reasonable solution for players is to never use the auto-assault unless they want to risk pushing the opponent away. Sounds like a real pain in the ass. 40v30... here goes nothing: attack, attack, attack, attack, zzzzz.

That is part of the beauty of it. You going to spend 30 sec. to manually take out 90 units, or you going for the Objective.
What does it matter; if you are set on taking the guy out..withdrawal is somewhat irrelevant?

Time is irrelevant when implementing a good strategy...you will not even notice, keeping your mind busy.
Having to rethink every move you make.

If you like simple and no thought. Make it a random reaction.
Attacker/Defender withdraw after rolling two sets of snake eyes or box cars...or the consecutive loss of so many units.
Or put a x in the auto assault option, signifying your intent for withdrawal.
Withdrawing from battle would create endless possibilities (strategies, options).

Because people got better things to do than push an Attack button for 5 minutes instead of 2 seconds.

That's why we got the Auto-Assault button. It's to make the game more convenient, not more inconvenient.


Think about your idea. If it's implemented, then hardly anyone's going to Auto-Assault. Sure, there'll be a tradeoff between saving time and risking a silly withdrawal, so a few would take the risk of a withdrawal in order to save some time, but that's a few. Nearly everyone would think: why should I give my opponent an advantage?

Your idea strongly discourages people from using Auto-Assault. That's all. So, it wouldn't add much in the way of strategy. People would use the normal Attack button to avoid giving the enemy an advantage.

[Gweeedo]

Quote:''Because people got better things to do than push an Attack button for 5 minutes''___Like what... maybe pressing the auto assault button for five more minutes.

Why do you think it would make, auto assault obsolete??? Do you Target Huge stacks in order to eliminate the stack...no!
No matter, you can push your attack and destroy the huge stack if you so choose...giving you more time to spend hitting the auto assault button. In fact this would increase the use of the auto assault button (if you want to get technical).

It really does not give anyone an advantage at all.
You spend 15 seconds to take out 30 (or more) unit using manual assault...
Besides, I do not think it is a real issue...nothing preventing you from using the auto assault if you want to kill large stacks?

''Hardly anybody is going to use the auto assault'' - What is the problem with using the auto assault?
So the defender will withdraw? auto assault him again it the next region (the one he withdrew too).

Example: you (player 1) have 60v45 Defender marks 33, this would mean the defender would retreat once his army has been reduced below 33.
Defender retreats one terit (friendly owned ). Say the defender has one unit on the terit (the terit he just withdrew to), he now has 33 units for defense 32+1=33 the defender no longer has the option to withdraw, being that his army has already reached its target loss.
Let us say that the defender retreats to a friendly terit that had 22 units on it before the withdrawing army entered; the defender can continue to withdraw if attacked (having 54 units)...the path in which the defender withdraws, might bring more units to bare.
No real change when assaulting a player.

The auto assault button retains its original function.

If you wish to destroy a huge army Attack, attack attack (using auto assault).
Only thing is, you ''might'' have to go deep into enemy territory in order to destroy it.
If you are going for his elimination you will be doing that anyhow.

Army vs army, terit vs terit...one is going to give way. This will allow players to stop (normally do if it was manual assault button) their assault without losing entire army.

Everybody will continue to use the auto assault button (if this was implemented), just as they always do.
How often do you target a terit with a big stack on it, just to destroy the stack (not that often...use the assault button).

Withdrawal from combat is not all that uncommon in war games.
This is one (if not the only) game that players have no other option. Battle outcome is decisive.
SO Keep it that way.

My original Idea was to limmit the kill factor with the use of the assault button.

What about my last suggestion?

Might I suggest using this as a attacker only option?
Attacker withdraw from combat...ending his turn.

Example: Attacker 22v34--Attacker presses the auto assault button (has 11 units placed in the auto assault button) OOPS, Attacker has just been reduced to 11 units...attacker turn has ended.

Ending the attackers turn is to appease the defender...not giving any advantage to the attacker (does not have to end turn).
Place, check, separate box, mark units in box...what ever.

In the above example the attacker lost 11 defender lost one...ending the attack, 11to33

Being forced to lose all your units with a push of a button (to save time) is not helpful.

[JBlombier]

Come one, Gweeedo. You've had enough counter arguments now. We all appreciate your efforts to make the site better, but this suggestion isn't creating a better gameplay, like the posters above me pointed out. Now please let it rest.

Thanks for your effort.

- JBlombier

[Gweeedo]

No worries, I let this go before I even posted it.

No real counter argument, being that it is clear to me they are not getting (understanding) it.
The (one and only) Argument never touched on the basis of my suggestion.
No problem.
Withdrawing from combat is not something new.
Auto assault button prevents the attacker from withdrawing from Battle...this is not right!


I still feel: Being forced to lose all your units with a push of a button (to save time) is no fun...

[betiko]

gweeeeeeeeeeeeeeedo has withdrawn from combat. EPIC WIN!!!!

[Gweeedo]

gweeeeeeeeeeeeeeedo has withdrawn from combat. EPIC WIN!!!!

That's it betiko, I think you finally got it!
Good for you.
So, you do remember the good old days, when original Risk allowed ''withdraw from Combat.''
I understand why CC took it out of the original Game...I think they could have done better.

[TheForgivenOne]

yeah both players would have to be there every turn, would be ridiculous

Not really. Each player could have a box in the game panel, put the magic number in the box.

@BigBallinStalin: No, Don't use the auto assault button, providing the attacker with options as well.
You might attack (using the auto assault button) thinking that the defender might withdraw (in the hopes that he will withdraw). If you do not want him to have a chance to withdraw his forces from battle...don't use the auto assault button.

So.... the reasonable solution for players is to never use the auto-assault unless they want to risk pushing the opponent away. Sounds like a real pain in the ass. 40v30... here goes nothing: attack, attack, attack, attack, zzzzz.

That is part of the beauty of it. You going to spend 30 sec. to manually take out 90 units, or you going for the Objective.
What does it matter; if you are set on taking the guy out..withdrawal is somewhat irrelevant.

Really? Now what about the people like me who have relatively slow internet at home, which could take up to 5-8 seconds to load a single attack? You're telling me I should have to sit there for half an hour to try and take out a 50 stack, just so he can't reinforce out?

[Gweeedo]

OK, this topic has become moot. I get it.
Too bad you don't get it!

Why else would you continue to focus on the assault button.
If you want to wipe an army out completely, why not use the Auto assault button???
Is it really that big a deal if you have to take multiple terits in order to eliminate said army.
maybe it is, with all the different maps that are out there (I have only played a limited amount).

Let us not focus on the defender withdrawal.
How about the attacker withdrawing from battle; CC has taken that option out of the original game, with the use of the auto assault button...forcing players to play their lousy dice.

[MoB Deadly]

Let us not focus on the defender withdrawal.

Why? This is the most fundamentally breaking part of your suggestion.

How about the attacker withdrawing from battle;

viewtopic.php?f=535&t=195316

Already submitted as Semi-Auto Assault - or Conditional Assault

[Gweeedo]

Let us not focus on the defender withdrawal.

Why? This is the most fundamentally breaking part of your suggestion.

How about the attacker withdrawing from battle;

viewtopic.php?f=535&t=195316

Already submitted as Semi-Auto Assault - or Conditional Assault

Yes, Defender withdrawal was only one aspect of my suggestion. I had edited my original suggestion; eliminating, suggestion that included the Attacker withdrawal option...because people had focused on 'defender withdrawal only.'

I have played Risk, allowing the Defender to withdraw from battle...It does work!
Just as CC has done away with attackers ability to withdraw from battle...it works too!
Currently, If you are the attacker and you want to withdraw from battle you have to use the assault (not auto) button...doesn't that suck!!!
If CC decides to give the Attacker the ability to withdraw from battle; I was thinking why not give it to the defender as well.
That's all.

Provided CC made allowances for the defenders withdrawal, I happen to include (good or bad) the assault (not auto assault) button as a way for the attacker to prevent the defender from withdrawing his force from battle...doesn't that suck!!!

Why would you suppose to be using the assault (not auto) button any more than you already do?
In rare cases the 'attacker' might use the assault (not auto) button as it is (rarely used).
It would amount to the same thing if the defender had the ability to withdraw...the assault (not auto) button would rarely be used by the attacker.
Players do not feel it important enough to use the assault (not auto) button for the attackers withdrawal, why would they be concerned with the defender withdrawing from battle. If on a rare case they are worried, use the assault (not auto) button just as you would if you wish (on the rare case) the attacker withdraw from battle.

If you think about it, the only time you wish to eliminate (in its entirety) a huge stack is if you are going for the elimination of that player...the Defending players withdrawing from battle is not going to Chang your ability to eliminate him from the game. It might make it harder(in a very minute way), but then it might make a non-successful attempt safer(for all).
I realize this is a real game changer and is not likely to be implemented.


Thanks for the link. I knew this (attacker getting hosed) must have come up before.
I will take a look at it now.

[spiesr]

I have played Risk, allowing the Defender to withdraw from battle...It does work!

Have you played asynchronous games with such a feature?

[Gabriel13]

Since the attacker withdrawal has already been submitted as a suggestion, the only thing you have is the defender withdrawal, which is an awful idea in my opinion.. It would take a ton of coding and people would have to constantly click how many troops they wanted to move and to where they wanted to move them after every single time. I feel as if it wouldn't be used. Also.. Let's say I'm playing a freestyle game against spiesr. If we are both taking our turn and I auto-assault the territory in which he chose to withdraw his troops, could he attack with said withdrawn stack somewhere after those troops are withdrawn?

[betiko]

Since the attacker withdrawal has already been submitted as a suggestion, the only thing you have is the defender withdrawal, which is an awful idea in my opinion.. It would take a ton of coding and people would have to constantly click how many troops they wanted to move and to where they wanted to move them after every single time. I feel as if it wouldn't be used. Also.. Let's say I'm playing a freestyle game against spiesr. If we are both taking our turn and I auto-assault the territory in which he chose to withdraw his troops, could he attack with said withdrawn stack somewhere after those troops are withdrawn?

go read his other suggestions. You're arguing with an 8 year old.

pew pew lazorzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!! prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!! explosion!!! then comes mister ambulance!!!!

[Gweeedo]

Since the attacker withdrawal has already been submitted as a suggestion, the only thing you have is the defender withdrawal, which is an awful idea in my opinion.. It would take a ton of coding and people would have to constantly click how many troops they wanted to move and to where they wanted to move them after every single time. I feel as if it wouldn't be used. Also.. Let's say I'm playing a freestyle game against spiesr. If we are both taking our turn and I auto-assault the territory in which he chose to withdraw his troops, could he attack with said withdrawn stack somewhere after those troops are withdrawn?

Is it an awful idea due to the coding aspect of it, or the playability of the game?
I can tell you how it can work...do you want me to do the coding too?

Be imaginative, be creative.
This is a computer game; anything is possible.
What else does the defender have...of course it would be used!
It would provide the defender with some options, and the possibility to save his ass! This game is one sided, attack, attack, attack.
Defender has nothing but to watch his armies being destroyed. Wouldn't it be nice coming back to a game to see that you are still alive simply because you initiated a successful withdraw?
This could all be accomplished (set) on the players turn (one turn for the entire game if need be).

I will answer your Questions:
Quote, Gabriel13
Let's say I'm playing a freestyle game against spiesr. end quote.
Then you should let spiesr win the first game, being that he has not played a freestyle since 2010.

Quote, Gabriel13:
If we are both taking our turn and I auto-assault the territory in which he chose to withdraw his troops, could he attack with said withdrawn stack somewhere after those troops are withdrawn? end quote.
It would work like any other simultaneous game on CC; Just as if you were attacking a terit at the same time spisr was trying to deploy units.
Yes: there would be no restrictions put on a army that has withdrawn from battle (following my suggestion).
Quote, spiesr:
Have you played asynchronous games with such a feature? end quote.
Hmm..confounded, you have stumped me...not.
irrelevant...a computer game
Of course...Yes I have.

I am trying to get the ball rolling, opening up the restrictive tactics this game is based on.
This is the suggestion box, Withdraw from combat is a valid suggestion for any war game...not to mention CC took it out of the (Original) Game.

Quote, betiko: go read his other suggestions. You're arguing with an 8 year old.
pew pew lazorzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!! prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!! explosion!!! then comes mister ambulance!!!! (picture) end quote.

Hey you really got that down. Is that you playing cars in the picture? Kinda looks like you (avitar) same haircut and all.
Well now, looks like you are moving up in the world; playing risk are we
Good for you! NOW you can play risk with your friends.
No worries, I don't think there is an age limit to play this game. Try to be an adult now, no crying or fighting.
You remember that twelve year old boy that was trying to give you advice on sex? Maybe you should go play your game and let the adults have their conversation.
And try not to fondle yourself in front of the children...bounce dumb ass!