Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by God Emperor:
[b]1) Can retreat be selected at any time? Or does the player have to be at map edge?
[b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Simplest way would be to allow it only prior to combat, and only for an entire fleet.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by God Emperor:
2) What are the consequences of the computer calculating that a retreat doesnt occur? Does the retreating player incur damage?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Combat would occur as it does now, but with supplies of both fleets adjusted to take the chase into account.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by God Emperor:
3) Is the calculation performed every combat round?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wouldn't allow individual ships to retreat. Less realistic but MUCH simpler.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by God Emperor:
My main concern with any system is that the combat must Last long enough for some kind of exchange of fire to occur, otherwise the strategic level of the game will be adversely affected.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that my idea would enhance the strategic level, even without any exchange of fire. Not only does it reward speed, it also rewards being well-supplied. Think of the Battle of the Bulge, for instance.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Taqwus:
Lack of consistency with the existing rules? IIRC, combat movement doesn't cost supply; only strategic movement does.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's not inconsistent. Retreating is a kind of strategic movement.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Yes, the strategic consequences of retreat seem to be the reason that it was removed. People would use it to get through blockades, and it was too tedious to chase down unarmed ships like colonizers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But my idea would make it easy to chase down colonizers, because they're almost always slower than warships. Even if they were faster, they'd run out of fuel if they kept retreating. As far as getting through blockades, that could be handled easily by moving attackers who retreated back to the (strategic) square from which they came. And they would lose supplies as well, which are usually more precious to attackers than defenders.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seawolf:
Sorry DMM, I made that suggestion 3 months ago almost as you have written it except the supplies are not used...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, the supply use is what makes my idea novel and workable. Otherwise, speed is all that counts, and the game turns into an engine research race.
My idea increases the strategy. For example, you attack an enemy fleet in his home system. He retreats. What do you do? Chase him, using up precious supplies? Or let him retreat, and go after his planets? This is VERY realistic. For example, that's how the Roman general (Scipius?) defeated Hannibal's army. He used his home turf advantage and kept retreating. Ditto with the Red Army vs. the Nazis.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seawolf:
3 problems with this are;

Weapon range of missiles. Missiles won't catch a ship usually so this could be a problem.

That emergency propulsion pod.. how would that be used?

If the ship running away has missles or mines they could drop them at the chasing ships. Missiles would be much more effective since the target is moving towards the missile, since it has to close with the target. SO the pursuing ships could receive damage while the "calculated chase" is going on.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't understand the first missile paragraph.

Yeah, hadn't thought about emergency propulsion (EP) or emergency supplies (ES). Good point. I guess the computer would assume that you'd want to use them if you needed them to make good your escape or catch the enemy. Or it could ask.

Mines and missiles couldn't be launched during retreat/pursuit. Your ships are using the engines in a different mode (strategic mode) during retreat than when they are in combat. The speed is much faster, there are space warping effects, it requires all of your ship's power, etc. Notice how retreating uses supplies whereas combat movement does not.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

This rule would make playing a whole lot better IMHO. The benifits would outweigh any disadvantages.

------------------
"We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats! They invade our space and we fall back -- they assimilate entire worlds and we fall back! Not again! The line must be drawn here -- this far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" -- Patric Stewart as Captain Picard
UCP/TCO Ship Yards

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

dmm:

A good suggestion, but my opinion is still that the strategic consequences of any halfway possible form of retreat are too grave. I'm sure some people wouldnt abuse the system but there are plenty that would and that would greatly detract from multiplayer IMO.

The games system STRATEGICALLY is just not set up for allowing ships to retreat in any form. It would mean that only warp points were defendable (if the retreating player at least had to return to their previous square). And IMO, that is taking so much from the game.

FWIW, as always, I'm all for seeing it included as an OPTION. If folks want to mess with it, fine, go for it. But I'd rather not see something that could be so drastically alter the gameplay added in as a patch item that couldnt be switched off if people didnt get the right feel from it.

Thanx,
Talenn

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Talenn:
dmm:

A good suggestion, but my opinion is still that the strategic consequences of any halfway possible form of retreat are too grave. I'm sure some people wouldnt abuse the system but there are plenty that would and that would greatly detract from multiplayer IMO.

The games system STRATEGICALLY is just not set up for allowing ships to retreat in any form. It would mean that only warp points were defendable (if the retreating player at least had to return to their previous square). And IMO, that is taking so much from the game.

FWIW, as always, I'm all for seeing it included as an OPTION. If folks want to mess with it, fine, go for it. But I'd rather not see something that could be so drastically alter the gameplay added in as a patch item that couldnt be switched off if people didnt get the right feel from it.

Thanx,
Talenn<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

How about if the only way to retreat is through the opposite end of tactical area...?

Forexample if you start your battle from the left side of tactical area, then the only way to retreat is through the right side (and viceversa). This would ofcourse mean that you would need to go through the opposing sides forces and take atleast some punishment to your shields...
IMO this would create interesting battles and still have the ability to retreat.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

I tell ya what, I wish there was a retreat option right now. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon9.gif I just lost 60 ships to one of my AI enemies. Man that was a crushing defeat. They had missles, PD, and Fighters. I attacked them with with torpedo's, fighters, and missle frigates. Oh brother what an erogant mistake that was. No if the AI would press its advantage, I will be hurting big time.

------------------
"We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats! They invade our space and we fall back -- they assimilate entire worlds and we fall back! Not again! The line must be drawn here -- this far, no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!" -- Patric Stewart as Captain Picard
UCP/TCO Ship Yards


[This message has been edited by Atrocities (edited 12 January 2001).]

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

first and foremost: If you have faster ships and you use your head, you can always evade your opponet to the 30 turn limit... (providing you don't enter at a worm hole and get immediately bLasted by long range weapons).

So the easiest way to allow (easier)retreat is simple... don't have any map borders.

In order to balance this, supplies should be used for movement during combat... thus if you keep on retreating you'll eventually run out of fuel and be caught.