Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by God Emperor:
I must agree with the earlier comment that the game is a strategic level game with a tactical option to test your ships, similar to MOO2. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I quite disagree. Although less obvious in SE4 than in previous iterations of the series, the SE series of games is derived from the board game Starfire. Starfire began as a tactical game, designed by one of the guys behind Star Fleet Battles as a game in which battles between relatively large fleets could be resolved in a reasonable amount of time. Not until the third expansion module to the first edition rules did Starfire even include a strategic system (beyond a few suggestions about how the cost of retrofitting ships might be handled in a campaign). That initial strategic system was very simple, and also rather similar to the SE games. It was essentially intended primarily to provide a strategic context for the tactical battles. The next edition of the rules introduced an entirely new and much more complex stategic system, including multiple levels of play: movement between systems, double-blind movement within enormous & realistically scaled system maps, and "interception" level to cover what happens between when opposing fleets enter the same system map hex and when they are close enough for the tactical map, and the tactical level. The game is now in its 4th rules edition. The trend recently, after peaking in complexity with the first iteration of strategic rules for the 3rd edition, has been to reduce the strategic complexity to get rid of record keeping and refocus the game on fighting tactical battles (with enough strategic stuff to provide context). Even so, SE4 is still a lot simpler than the latest strategic system in Starfire.

MOO, on the other hand, is derived from Stellar Conquest. Stellar Conquest hardly even had a tactical system - if two fleets entered the same hex on the strategic map the players rolled dice for each ship to see if it killed its target until one side was eliminated or withdrew. The original MOO copied everything but combat almost exactly from Stellar Conquest, except it had more planet types & more techs. So, the tactical system in MOO is clearly an add-on to a strategic game.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

You out run him. If he is faster than you, you ain't retreating. If you are both tied, the best you can do is keep the range unchanged.

Since you can travel through warp points in combat, their are really only two ways to get away:

1) Retreat to a warp point and warp to another system. He can of course follow, but hopefully not. If it is your system you warp to, he might fear what defenses you have waiting and opt not to follow.

2) Either he doesn't feel like chasing you (yeah right) or there is another threat greater than you in the system. If you came through a WP and ran past his WP defenses, he probably won't pull his WP defenses away from the WP to chase you down. Of course, he might have a second fleet for just such an emergency.

If you happen to have the same speed ships as your enemy, a prolonged retreat (Lasting weeks of game time) could cause your tactical engines to fail. Of course, it could also cause his to fail. All in all, you'll slowly have ships start to fall behind and get eaten if you try and retreat for weeks at a time.

I've ignored different engine techs and engine detuning, which, all things being equal, don't have a huge impact on retreating.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seawolf:
dmm, It was a post to eveeryone not just you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, I realized that. I just didn't want others to confuse my ideas with other peoples' ideas. I think we're all posting for everyone, aren't we?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seawolf:
I also notice you didn't talk about the supply usage or the fact that some ships would get more movement than others.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know what you mean by some ships getting more movement than others. Please explain.
Regarding supply usage: I'm changing my mind on that, somewhat. I now prefer the idea of using remaining movement points (MP) to retreat. (See a later post of mine. Also the Starfire Posts are interesting.) Of course, using that MP would use up supplies as usual.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seawolf:
As far as your example goes in A where you have a 10 ship fleet verses a 15 ship fleet ( I assuming that you are playing in a simultanous game otherwise this doesn't apply) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was thinking in turn-based actually.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seawolf:
if there is more than 1 colony to destroy if makes sense to split up your fleet and force him to do the same. if not you get a free shot at a colony or 2.
But in either example the strategy, IMO, is the decision you make to split the fleet or attack a group of ships. Not, having an out in case it was a bad decision.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you're missing the point: without retreat, there's almost never a reason for splitting a fleet, for either A or B. Consider just the first example: If A is so stupid as to split his fleet, then (usually) B can keep his together and kill each of A's sub-fleets in turn, DURING THE SAME TURN. Unless A managed to move one of his sub-fleets out of range of B -- but then why didn't A just move his whole fleet out of range? So there's NO strategic choice for A to make; he should keep his fleet together. Ditto for B. (I'm assuming that neither A nor B is an idiot, and I'm ignoring some special cases.)
But now consider if there is retreating, and suppose A splits his fleet. When it is B's turn, he doesn't know how much movement A's ships have left. If he keeps his fleet intact, and A's ships retreat, he runs the risk of running out of MP before tracking down all of A's ships. But if he splits up, he may have to give up numerical advantage in some battles.

I know I'm making no-retreat sound worse than it actually is. Even with no-retreat, I can think of examples where splitting of fleets might help. But my basic point is this:

Adding good retreat rules will HELP strategic play, not hurt it. It will be richer, more interesting, and more in line with common sense. (And it wouldn't be very hard to code.)

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Quick question. Is retreat possible in Starfire and how is it done?

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Zanthis covered how it works in Starfire in general. I'll add a bit of detail. Ever since the second generation rules (4th generation was just published back in August), Starfire has used a system in which, for all practical purposes, the entire galaxy is one huge tactical map. If you are moving on the system map and not involved with any enemy forces, including using warp points to move between systems, you are on a system map which is much larger than SE4 but essentially the same concept. If something is going on in multiple systems, you play it out more or less in parallel (set up the map for system A and play out a turn, then set up for system B and play out the turn, etc...). If you enter the same system hex with some enemy, that takes the action to "interception resolution" - new map on different time & distance scale so that the entire interception level map is one hex on the system map. After the number of interception turns has passed to equal one system turn, you pause interception level play and go back to system level to play a turn (so new forces can enter the interception-level battle in progress). If you run off the interception level map, it "floats" (so you don't change the range) but now you are in the adjacent system hex. If you enter the same interception level hex as the enemy, that takes you to the tactical scale, which has the same relationship to the interception level as the interception level has to the system level. So, as stated by Zanthis, you retreat by running far enough away that there is more than one interception hex worth of tactical hexes between you, which gets you back to the interception level.

The retreat proposal that I made earlier (let you declare retreat if you are outside the enemy's weapon range & he lacks the speed to close the range, which puts you in the next sector on the system map and burns on stategic MP) has the same general effect as the Starfire system but it is not quite as detailed or complex. It would also be a lot easier to code than changing SE4 to copy the Starfire system, even if you skipped interception level and just had system & tactical.

To add to DMM's comments, the business of forcing your enemy to split his forces so that you can "defeat him in detail" is a classic element of strategy. This is the only way an inferior force can win, except to stand seige where the defense works & terrain multiply his force and hope the stronger side commits the folly of a frontal assault. Much of the manuevering by Lee in the War of Northern Aggression was conducted with that aim in mind. It is also what the Germans were trying to do at Jutland in WWI. One of the ways classically used to do that is to "put your opponent on the horns of a dilemma", by choosing a line of advance with alternative objectives. For a thorough discussion of this, read the book "Strategy" by B. H. Liddell Hart. Having a game system that allows you to attempt that stuff is a positive, not a negative. It creates something other than a war of attrition to be won by whoever has the biggest fleet.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

For the benefit of non-U.S. players:
The "War of Northern Agression" to which Barnacle Bill refers is the one commonly referred to as the "U.S. Civil War." Barnacle Bill apparently is from the southern U.S., with no plans to run for any national political office.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

dmm,

What I meant by additional movement is that if a fleet has 6 movement points and with 1 left gets into combat and then retreats. If that fleet gets to retreat more than 1 then it is getting more movemnt points tahn it should. But if the other fleet chasing has more than 1 movement point it will catch the other fleet and force a comabt anyway.

As far as spliting a fleet. Planets create the needed building blocks for an empire. If I can wipe out 3 planets I would split the fleet. Also if it is turn based and I have movement left over I can move away from the defending fleet. This way he needs to spend points on rebuilding those planets and waste ship building capacity on colony ships rather than warships.

What if he had a resupply station on one of the planets and buy destroying it forces his fleet to go back to get resupplied? Yes I may lose some ships but I will have done strategic damage to him.

------------------
Seawolf on the prowl

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Seawolf,
Regarding extra movement points (MPs): I agree. Using my latest suggested retreat rules (see below), a fleet would use remaining MP to retreat. So a fleet with no MP left that turn could not retreat. A fleet could also not pursue a retreater if it had no MP left. That still is somewhat artificial, but I don't see how that can be avoided with turn-based.

Regarding splitting of fleets to kill planets: My example wasn't clear enough. I was assuming that no colonies were in range that turn.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dmm:
For the benefit of non-U.S. players:
The "War of Northern Agression" to which Barnacle Bill refers is the one commonly referred to as the "U.S. Civil War." Barnacle Bill apparently is from the southern U.S., with no plans to run for any national political office.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe next time they hold an election for President of the CSA, I'll throw my hat in the ring http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

By letting the defender "borrow" movement points from his next move, nobody gets any more movement points than anybody else. The limit is how many points he would have available during his next move. This is necessary if retreat is not just to be for attackers who bit off more than they can chew.

[This message has been edited by Barnacle Bill (edited 23 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Barnacle Bill (edited 23 January 2001).]

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Responses.

dmm,

I would split my fleet to pull a defender away from a point as well. If they have a fleet guard a wormhole I would split my fleet and see if he goes after either one which would allow me to enter the wormhole next turn. Or if I have another fleet comming I would lure the fleet into staying or get close to my arriving fleet point of entry.


Bill,

You can't borrow movemnt points it would make it unfair. yes after 2 turns you would have moved the same amounts but what if during a retreat I entered into another system that had a new race in it. I would have established contact a whole turn early which is to my benefit. Also if your fleet doesn't have any movement points or less movement points than your attacker. (Which I would guess would be 90% of the time in a turn based game)you can't retreat so why spend so much time on an option that winds up not being used anyway? I would rather the time be spent on getting drones in and working on the AI. IMHO


------------------
Seawolf on the prowl