Req technically both players can be on and moving at the same time during a campaign turn. By logging on more often an active player is getting an advantage, and you want to punish them for being active.

If you want to make the game realistic then you have to allow the withdrawing army to deal damage as well. Or give the players an option of a fighting withdrawl or retreating. With the fighting withdrawl both sides deal 10% damage (just an example) but the withdrawing side only gets half their movement, with the retreat option the side fleeing moves double their movement, while there opponents do 30% damage. This way there are advantages and disadvantages to each.

If you want to be realistic give the units the ability to retal against every attack. The first retal would be 100% the second retal would be 50% the third retal would be 25%, it would continue to be divided in half for each additional retal. The macemens bonus would mean that they always retal at 100%. But also implement DoRW's suggestion either by giving the attacker an additional 5% to their attack, or taking an additional 5% from the current retal of the unit. Again the macemen would be immune to the affect.

"2, i still dont like the whole turn system.
Player A gets to move and act 20 armies or more in a turn while Player B can do absolutely nothing.
I've never seen this in a game either, and to me it sucks.
With this sort of retreat penalty, it gives the "waiting" player a bit more support, as only the "active" player is effected by the retreat penalty."

We've had this discussion before. I gave you an example of one of the most popular strategy games for the GameBoy Advance that uses the same system...and a lot of people are attracted to that system. And I'll repeat what I've said before. If you want to make a battle system that allows you to move 5 or so troops each turn, and the rest sit still...fine...as long as you keep our current system too. There's nothing wrong with moving all your troops in the same turn. I feel that way so strongly that if you decide to completely take away the move-all-your-troops-in-one-turn battles, I'd probably quit. I completely support you if you want to have BOTH kinds of battles, that would bring interesting diversity to the game. But I think that our current battles have too much value to dispense with them completely, as you've suggested, time and time again.

A battle game where each player got one move and attack each turn instead of all the pieces is something to consider. There might be a turn indicator on the map itself, to avoid slow play due to going to the game window to see if it is your turn, or refreshing like a madman. That way, if you tried to get away, or reposition, your opponent would have to decide whether to attack your retreating piece or find better targets. This wouldn't take longer than a battle where each player moves everything at once.

I hope I get some resource piles beyond a line of "barbs" before this is implemented.

TR

well if this isn't interesting.

I'm assuming I am the only one who has actually been in fights like you are describing. A unoderly retreat ends up with hugh losses. While a steady retreat that is ordered (orderly) Then loses are minimal if not at all.

now fighting sword to sword most people will hear a drum or horn signaling a retreat and they will back down using their weapons to block the enemies weapons. Only a foolish commander orders his troops to follow. A smart commander orders a fall back following the enemy's retreat to re-group his own forces to re-deploy.

A picture gally of said ideals
www.dagorhir.org/images/gallery.htm

I could see 5% losses on a withdraw so that way if a player has a unit that is surrounded by 3 or more units then it will add up, but from a one on one battle it would have little affect on the troop.

Now this could also be used for the randoms in all the games. just modify the text so that if ANY army moves by it the random will attack that unit.

Now if you plan to use this also add a rush feature so that when more than 50% of the movement was used to make contact with the unit then that unit does 25% more damage.

A rush feature on it's own might be worthwhile. Although, the limit may have to be a bit higher, as 50% BP is fairly easy to achieve, and otherwise it just ends up being something that happens, as opposed to something planned for.

It certainly wouldn't be the first game to use it....