No retreat penalty?

[Galsiah]

If this were changed, I think it should be done simply - for instance:
(1) Assume all retreats are orderly.
(2) Make retreating (i.e. moving out of an enemy ZoC) cost one more movement point.

This would simulate the need for a careful, orderly retreat.

Whether this adds much to the game I'm not sure - I can't see it making a lot of difference. Also, to make it realistic there would still be complications, e.g. if you're retreating from a hex controled by another of your units, then that unit could cover your retreat - even if you ran like hell rather than carefully withdrawing. The movement penalty wouldn't make sense then.

As to all the discussion of "realism", and the WINR!! responses, please could I appeal to good sense and move away from talking of "realism" and towards coherence / consistency. Wesnoth might not be realistic - there's no reason that it should be -, but it should be coherent (as all games should be).
This means that once a player is familiar with most of Wesnoth's rules, nothing should happen that breaks his sense of immersion: new rules should fit with the old ones. These need not be game rules as such - just "rules" that have become part of the player's expectations.

For instance one game "rule" a player might pick up is that units get better when they level up. He probably won't have consciously thought this, and technically it's not really a Wesnoth rule. However, if it is later violated, you can be sure that the player's immersion is going to go out the window: a unit levelling up and getting worse as a result wouldn't be coherent in Wesnoth.

Does the lack of a retreat penalty break any "rules" in this way? I'd say not. I didn't find it at all surprising when I was able to retreat without penalty - in fact I'd say precisely the opposite: a retreat penalty would if anything be immersion breaking itself.

WINR, but WSBC (Wesnoth Should Be Coherent). This isn't a violation of coherence, and for the most part, WIC, which is nice.

[Temuchin Khan]

This means that once a player is familiar with most of Wesnoth's rules, nothing should happen that breaks his sense of immersion: new rules should fit with the old ones. These need not be game rules as such - just "rules" that have become part of the player's expectations....

Does the lack of a retreat penalty break any "rules" in this way? I'd say not. I didn't find it at all surprising when I was able to retreat without penalty - in fact I'd say precisely the opposite: a retreat penalty would if anything be immersion breaking itself.

WINR, but WSBC (Wesnoth Should Be Coherent). This isn't a violation of coherence, and for the most part, WIC, which is nice.

Nicely put.

[Zhukov]

I have a feeling this idea is well-and-truly dead in the water.

[ramble]
enigmoo: Don't be put out by your idea being turned down. I see you are fairly new to the forums. Understand that when people take a swipe at your idea they are (in most cases) not being hostile, they just disagree with the idea. When people get bitter about their ideas not being accepted the results can be somewhat ugly.
[/ramble]

That said, would anyone care to put the last nail in the coffin...?

[Temuchin Khan]

Don't be put out by your idea being turned down. I see you are fairly new to the forums. Understand that when people take a swipe at your idea they are (in most cases) not being hostile, they just disagree with the idea. When people get bitter about their ideas not being accepted the results can be somewhat ugly.

I would like to second this. enigmoo, my advice is to watch and wait, getting a feel for the game's dynamics, before posting more suggestions. That's what I did after my first idea (eliminating a particular level from Heir to the Throne) was shot down. And I've had a good number of ideas that were never even discussed, or that were overlooked or forgotten. Hey, that's life.