There should be a way to go on a counter-offensive when a battle is retreated. I think maybe an hour timer is put up for the option to attack the retreating party. In any real battle a retreating army is at its weakest.

I disagree with the not being able to attack for 24 hours a country or overall because an army is huge you can be retreating in one area and be attacking elsewhere.

My idea is to just not allow the army to attack the region they retreated from for 24 hours but let them attack elsewhere.

A retreat is a loss and should be counted as such.

I agree with Moot, the penalty should be not being able to attack that region for 24 hours. I do feel however that there should be a counterattack option given to the country that forced the retreat... perhaps an hour is a good idea.

I agree with Dutch marley, while retreating ( one or two hours) the army(all who fought maybe) shouldn't be able to atack and the other side should have the opportunitie to counter atack, during the counteratack the counteratacking force should have a bonus to dmg.

Retreat in RL is loss. Why not in this game?

retreating is a loss. treat it that way.

I guess I'm just repeating this, but, retreating is a loss in every way you look at it =/ why isn't it treated as such?

Make this change. It would still be possible to attack a different territory or territories and then retreat - the only difference would be that you would have to actually, y'know, win a battle before you could attack again.

While we're at it, why can't you attack while being attacked? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and is not in line with real battle. If you want to make the game more realistic, then make it so that it can conform to more realistic war conventions. Also, what is the deal with having to reach a certain line to "secure" an area. How about this: if the attacker cannot get to the underground by the time 24 hours is up, then the original land holder keeps the territory. The way you have it, the onus is on the defender to spend more money on tanking when they did not asked to be attacked. Totally unfair, and again, not in line with realistic war conventions. Forget overtime, if the attacker gets past a certain point in a preset period of time, then they win. If not, defender wins, so that the onus is only on the attacker, which is the way it should be.

The way it currently is implemented the retreat function should be considered an exploit and should not be allowed to be used to continually have the advantage in a war. It's unrealistic and inherently game imbalancing.

There are A LOT of things wrong with the war module. PimpDollaz is right. Unfortunately, it seems to be confirmed for many people that the admins have every intention of giving the advantage to PEACE. My absolute biggest frustration are the one-sided "glitches" that have caused the eUSA to lose territory or be more vulnerable.

I know I've strayed a little off topic, but I think this is a serious drawback to the game. I'm considering an anti-eRepublic campaign on the internet. We'll see whether they care more about customer service for those that have faithfully played/promoted their game or if they would just rather play out their RL prejudices through their fantasy life.

There are A LOT of things wrong with the war module. PimpDollaz is right. Unfortunately, it seems to be confirmed for many people that the admins have every intention of giving the advantage to PEACE. My absolute biggest frustration are the one-sided "glitches" that have caused the eUSA to lose territory or be more vulnerable.

I know I've strayed a little off topic, but I think this is a serious drawback to the game. I'm considering an anti-eRepublic campaign on the internet. We'll see whether they care more about customer service for those that have faithfully played/promoted their game or if they would just rather play out their RL prejudices through their fantasy life.

that is idiotic. Retreating is the only way to go from defensive to offensive, of which you were moaning about earlier in the war. come one guys these things are to make the game more strategic so its not only powerful countries who win but the better tactics give advantages. If you think there is a problem then you should exploit it to your advantage (as if its a problem for you it could be a problem for the opposition as well), not moan about it as though it would make any difference in the war. These tactical ideas are the only way you could of turned this war around against the power of PEACE so believe me its a bad idea to get rid of them.

Retreating should have consequences.

retreating is a loss per say, but in RL many regiments retreat as a tatic to regroup and counter attack while the oppositions guard is down some feeling victirious. Some army's specifically train to retreat to draw they enemy over lines and then ambush them. If we are going to battle along the theory of actual war, then retreat must be allowes to be deployed as a tactical assault.

I think that when the wall gets to a certain point and the attacker retreats, you should be able to immediately attack the region they attacked from and have a little bonus because you would have momentum.

In real life, it is always harder to defend than to attack(because you don't know what the enemy's move will be when you defend). So I think it's normal to help the defenders(as in real life, the defenders have the advantage of knowing the terrain, routes, supply sources,minefields etc). In other order of ideea, the 24H penalty is ok. When you retreat you have to "reorganize" your troops :D :D, so you can not attack until then(24H)