Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Adding to my earlier proposition:

If you do not escape from the opposite
end your fleet is effectively trapped in
space by the larger fleet (fleet bloackade/surrounded in 3D)? It would prevent you from moving your fleet strategically until you start a new battle and run through your enemies and out from the opposite side...

Larger blockading fleets ships could spread out from bottom to top before you had time to
exit from the opposite side (even if this fleets ships would be slower). This would make interesting battles where that sides forces who were trying to escape are forced to run through the other players battle line.

Maybe this sounds too far fetched, but hey, you can always try http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

It's a nice feature to be able to retreat and the supply rule takes care of a lot of arising problems.
Towards the end of the game however, once two sides have both developed quantum reactors, the only thing that counts is speed again. So that propulsion experts should be able to win every game simply by staying alive long enough and then harvesting ripe colonies, while retreating when encountering fleets.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

The main problem with the "no borders" idea is that, when you engage an enemy in open space you start at opposite sides of the map. Two forces with matching speed would never engage. This would defeat the basic reason for the combat starting, one fleet setting out to intercept the other. Making the combat area somewhat larger would help the retreating ship but if you do increase the size, you would need to keep the same starting distance. I believe that the suggestion to only allow retreat via the opposite starting side would be the most "fair" and easiest solution. I also feel that no retreat should be allowed at warp points if the combat is taking place in the warp point, if it is in the space around the warp point then retreat would be possible.
I also believe that at warp points and planets, that the non-moving force (most likely the defender) should have the first combat turn. At warp points, this would usually ensure at least 1 attack by the stationary force. As it is now, I can use my first turn to move out of range of the enemy, before his sat's can fire.
It also is makes little sense to eliminate all remaining movement from the retreating force, when you attack someone you still have movement left. If you manage to avoid combat/destruction you still have movement left. Why is retreating any different? Forcing retreating ships to go back to their previous square is also unrealistic, space is 3D afterall.
The current system is fair, albeit somewhat unrealistic(it's about as realistic as time manipulation or colonizing various worlds without regard to their size and therefore gravitional effect on the people). It is the only way to enforce you borders within the current game structure. Imagine with me for just a moment. You border fleet engages 5 colony ships of the enemy, the 5 manage to run past the you, and head in 5 directions. You split 5 ships to chase them down, before they can colonize and deploy a minefield around the colony. Once the chase is on, the enemy sends in a force that clears the remaining border fleet and heads for your worlds. (In the current system, you would have crushed the colony ships and had a full force waiting for the enemy fleet.) Now the above scenario sounds good, and makes a good argument for allowing retreat, instead of not allowing it. But the AI would only create the scenario by accident.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eisenhans:
It's a nice feature to be able to retreat and the supply rule takes care of a lot of arising problems. Towards the end of the game however, once two sides have both developed quantum reactors, the only thing that counts is speed again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ouch! That's a good point. Maybe there should be a chance of the QR overloading during a retreat. That sort of thing happens a lot in StarTrek, FWIW. "She was na designed to go at warp nine for this long, Captain!" "I don't care Scotty. Just keep her together."

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dmm:
Maybe there should be a chance of the QR overloading during a retreat. That sort of thing happens a lot in StarTrek, FWIW. "She was na designed to go at warp nine for this long, Captain!" "I don't care Scotty. Just keep her together."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that I am advocating it (since I disagreed with it) but the more recent editions of Starfire introduced a distiction between "military engines" and "commercial engines". The max speed of a given hull is lower with commercial engines, but they are more reliable. The max speed is higher with military engines, but they are subject to "breakdown" if you exceed 1/2 speed in strategic movement (there is no breakdown in tactical movement). The effect there was to create a design trade-off between strategic speed and tactical speed. I didn't like it because it failed my "real life" test. Commercial systems don't have more capability than military ones (except maybe high tech electronics, because the military development system is slower than commercial right now). Commercial systems are optimized for low cost operation and low maintenance. Military systems are optimized for performance, and typically eat more fuel & need more warm bodies tending them. So, in SE4 terms you would get a higher max speed with military systems but have increased fuel usage & crew requirements vs the same ship with commercial engines. That doesn't have the effect you are talking about here.

Rather, you would be talking about a possibility of breakdown in tactical combat if a certain percentage of max speed was exceeded.

Frankly, I don't have this big problem with faster ships being able to avoid combat. In real life, that is how it works. Faster speed plus longer ranged weapons in real life also means "the fast guy with long arms wins". Ask just about anybody who ever fought the Mongols about that!

If you want seekers and direct fire weapons to be balanced so that both are equally viable, look at Star Fleet Battles. They seem to have managed it. I think the general method is that neither has a real range advantage. Seekers are easier to intercept & have a longer reload time, but pack a bigger punch to that it all works out about even.

If you want to eliminate the overwhelming advantage of higher speed, in a context in which you have also eliminated the seeker range advantage, adopt an opportunity fire system like the Steel Panthers games. Any weapon you don't manually fire during your turn is eligible for opportunity fire during the other side's turn. Each unit can be given an individual range at which it will opportunity fire. That lets you "hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes" instead of poping off beyond EFFECTIVE range, but also make sure you are not setting yourself up for the other guy to stay just beyond your opportunity fire range and pummel you. Net result is that there is no more running in, firing and running back out of range to avoid enemy return fire.

So, my vote would to do all of the below:

1) Eliminate the tactical map borders (or make the map so big you can't reach them at a speed of 20 in 30 turns).

2) If you are the same speed or faster than the fastest ship on the other side and currently out of weapons range, you can declare that you are withdrawing and that ends combat. You then must exit to the sector on the strategic map corresponding to where you were on the tactical map when you declared withdrawal. This expends one movement point from next turn, if the battle was initiated by the other side moving into the sector during his move. If you have no strategic movement points left, you can't withdraw and have to play out the 30 tactical turns.

3) Balance direct fire weapons & seekers to eliminate the seeker range advantage.

4) Introduce a Steel Panthers-style opportunity fire system.

5) Introduce maximum speed variations all up and down the hull size range, make ship-to-ship weapons ineffective against population (you might get a few as collateral damage when shooting the WP's, but if the planet was over half full and had a full load of WP's you should not be able to eliminate the colony population with ship-to-ship weapons), and make anti-population weapons too big to put in the smaller hull sizes (nothing less than a cruiser). The intent here is to make sure that even a Propulsion Experts race can't make a colony-killing raider force that can outrun your smaller warships. This creates a late-game role for those smaller ships - defending against things that can outrun your battle force strategically, and preventing the enemy's escape from your battle line tactically.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Bill, once again I find myself agreeing with your suggestions. The only suggestion that I don't like is the one about cancelling out seekers range advantage over beams. Missiles have longer range, period. What I have been thinking of doing to help the AI is to make all Versions of a weapon have the same range (current max) but only have variations in power and maybe to hit. That way it won't be so easy for players to outrange the AI and pummel it. It means all races should use missiles to some extent to get a long range weapon system but that's ok with me.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Barnacle Bill:
Frankly, I don't have this big problem with faster ships being able to avoid combat. In real life, that is how it works. Faster speed plus longer ranged weapons in real life also means "the fast guy with long arms wins". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Usually true, but there are some caveats:
1) If you run out of gas/forage/food/endurance, you get caught, even by a slower opponent.
2) You also get caught by a slower opponent if you get surrounded or trapped.
3) If the terrain doesn't allow you to use your speed, you can get caught.
4) Once you run out of arrows, your long-range bows are useless.
5) Forces that depend upon speed and long-distance weapons get decimated in a close fight.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

dmm, so true. That's why forces should be balanced with long range hitters and close range maulers. Not much point in that in SE4 for the moment imo.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

I must agree with Talenn again regarding retreats. Although the current system is fairly unrealistic with respect to a retreating playing getting trapped in a corner, STRATEGICALLY it doesnt play out too bad. Also as has been pointed out, there are other oddities in the game system so this is not an exception.

I do like the idea though of factoring in ship speeds and relative supply levels. I know it would involve a bit of code but the following might help;

Include a retreat order option. If selected by a player, the code looks at the relative average speed and supply differences of the attackers warships and defenders (retreating player)ships (all ships, not just warships) and modifies the combat round length with 20 turns being the base. The calculated number could be kept hidden to keep a bit of suspense ("damn when is this combat round going to end", says the retreating player).
I would suggest that there be a minimum combat round length and a maximum (most players who want to retreat are usually dead by turn 30, so theres not too much point going beyong this).
The base 20 combat rounds would also help reduce the oddity of a tiny ship with 1 or 2 missiles taking out decent sized planet in one combat round.
Thoughts?

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

with the type of technology the ship engines in SE4 are at - just exactly where would you retreat to in the vastness of space? You cant create a warp point or warp away. You could outrun someone if you had the better engines and were not too damaged.. but thats about it...the only way to handle this would be to have running battles that Lasted several strategic turns, in other words the ships are locked in combat until they both leave the sector the battle is occuring in.
If you are crushing the enemy fleet - you wouldnt just allow them to retreat to the next sector - you would pursue them - unless there was a reason not to.

[This message has been edited by AJC (edited 18 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by AJC (edited 18 January 2001).]