Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Here is a suggestion for a simple, reasonable disengage/retreat rule:

When one player chooses to retreat, the other player is given the option to pursue. It he says no, then retreat is successful, obviously. If he says yes, then the chase is on, but only via equations. The chase is figured by the computer based on initial distance, relative speed, and amount of supplies remaining to each fleet. (One complication: when a player's supplies get low, he should be given a warning and the opportunity to stop retreating (or stop chasing).) If retreat is unsuccessful, then combat ensues, with appropriately reduced supplies for both fleets. (So if the retreating fleet runs out of supplies, then it's a sitting duck. No movement, no weapons.)

The nice thing about this system is that it is fairly realistic but puts little extra programming burden on MM. It will work for both strategic and tactical combat. It doesn't require a scrolling battle map.

The other nice thing is that this system doesn't guarantee successful retreats to inferior fleets. It doesn't allow an invading fleet to avoid decisive fights with a defending fleet, unless it is both faster and better supplied. And even if the invader succeeds in retreating, it will have used up a lot of its supplies doing so.

What do you think?

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

This had been proposed a long time ago. Don't know why not put in but I guess it not as simple as we think


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

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seawolf:
This had been proposed a long time ago. Don't know why not put in but I guess it not as simple as we think
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know that retreating was proposed but there were a lot of fears that it would either require a scrolling battle map or would be too easy (and hence unbalancing).

I haven't seen any Posts along the lines of my proposal. I think it is a new idea. And it is definitely very simple to implement.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

What if retreating was made to work somewhat like MOO did (I think)...

Basically, to retreat, you've move your ship to an edge of the sector, and then select retreat. At that point, your ship would be vulnerable for, say, 3 turns where it couldn't move or fire, before it left the map. That would give an opportunity to maybe get some pot shots at it before it fled.

The other part of this would be that fleeing the sector during battle would leave your ship in another sector (the one it entered from?) at the end of the battle.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Lintman's suggestion is very simple (and is similar to some previous ones). But the problem with it, is that it is arbitrary and illogical. If the number of paralyzation turns is set low, it allows totally outclassed fleets to run away from your fleets and go attack your planets, with not much penalty. If you try to fix this problem by making the number of turns being paralyzed quite high, then you've unduly penalized fast, well-supplied fleets, which realistically SHOULD be able to retreat successfully.

OK, now that I've cruelly bashed Lintman's (old) idea, somebody tell me what's wrong with my (new) idea. (Of course, no one will, because it is a great idea! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif )

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

dmm,
Just trying to figure out what your proposal means;
1) Can retreat be selected at any time? Or does the player have to be at map edge?
2) What are the consequences of the computer calculating that a retreat doesnt occur? Does the retreating player incur damage?
3) Is the calculation performed every combat round?

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.....
Personally, I'm prepared to live with the existing system, despite its oddities...

(I dont mind pounding away at someone trapped in the map corner, he he he....).

Having said that, if supply levels and relative speeds could be incorporated such that had a low influence on the combat outcome, it would be a nice improvement..

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Sorry DMM,

I made that suggestion 3 months ago almost as you have written it except the supplies are not used and that the computer checked to see if the chasing ships moved faster than the pursued. If no then escape, if yes then the computer should calculated the number of turns it would take to get within weapon range. If number is over a certain amount the retreat is successful.
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.



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

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

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. It's too bad, because hitting an invisible wall is not remotely realistic. I'd rather have some sort of retreat, even if it doesn't allow strategic movement. Maybe we can get the combat map expanded a bit more so that it's more possible to stay out of weapons range for 30 turns?

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Lack of consistency with the existing rules? IIRC, combat movement doesn't cost supply; only strategic movement does.

A complicated solution might be --

Remove the plain turn limit and the borders.

Individual ships that are at least some large threshold (100 squares, say) far from all of their enemies may, at their option, escape. Withdrawal location should possibly be a random adjacent empty square on a per-ship basis, or possibly destroyed if none are available; this fleeing consumes all movement points for the subsequent GAME turn (i.e. it's a serious penalty, because these ships may be picked off one by one while thusly scattered).

What SHOULD happen when the defender flees while entirely surrounded, is unclear to me. Possibly it should be treated as an attack and lead to another fight? The automatic destruction rule comes from traditional war games, but fleeing armies are usually more restricted in their movement and easier to intercept than space ships, one would think.


Combat terminates on

a) all remaining pairs of objects are allied,

b) (chess-like) no hull damage, facility destruction, population loss, unit/ship loss, or unit/ship escape for N turns (to prevent certain forms of obnoxious behavior),

c) Perhaps, mutual consent? Might be useful, for instance, if both sides end up with crippled ships and neither has a prospect of damaging the other, and neither wants to have to wait N turns. Or there are probably other peculiar uses, like two enemies agreeing to cooperate for one battle against a superior foe, and again not wanting to wait for N turns or bothering to move away from each other.

Apply translation to the entire map. After all, if your ship is in the center of the screen (or near it), then anything that's far enough to be off it isn't immediately relevant, since it's much too far for shooting; it's presence can be noted on a minimap (perhaps a square with a radius equal to the escape threshold; really don't need to re-center, 'tho, if next object is w/n, say, 5-10 of center I'd think) or by a labelled arrow on the appropriate map edge.

If you want to run, you have to be fast enough to put distance between you and your foes, but you won't be hampered by slamming into a mysterious wall. If you scatter, actually, there's a good chance some will escape since your attacker may not be sufficiently numerous enough to chase 'em all.

Drawbacks obvious to me include the complexity (infinite-size board, retreating placement), possibility for arbitrariness (via the parameters), and, naturally, coding complexity. But maybe for SE V, heh, and it'd at least get rid of the borders and the basic turn limit (which can stop you right before you start doing hull damage, say).


------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Just a point,

guys this is not a tactical combat game here. While I agree that some changes should be mage this game needs to be able to run the combat without human intervention to be effective. Think of computing power and time that would be needed if we made an opened combat board or not had turn limits

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

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.

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).]

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

I really don't care how it's done as long it is done and is somewhat logical and can't be abuse too easily. I just can't see no reason why a single frigate (for example) have to die when attacked by 25 battleships when it's clearly fast enough to run.

WWII would have been very interesting if a solid unpassable wall suddenly appeared behind the troops as soon the enemy was spotted.

- Sarge, they outnumber us ten to one, lets get the hell out of here.
- No can do corporal. They see us and the rules says we can't run then.
- That sucks sarge!
- Yeah, I know. Now charge them and hope you take one with you.

Doesn't sound like a likely scenario to me.

The way to get to your enemies fleet and kill it is to go after something your enemy has to defend. That way he'll either stay and fight giving you the chance to hurt him or he'll run and you'll still hurt him by taking/destroying what he was supposed to defend.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Jubala et al:

Yeah, but WWII would have also been interesting if Naval Combat had had no inertia. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Oh, and it would also be interesting if you werent allowed to fire until your enemy had done so..."Gee Sarge, they moved into range, can we bLast em now?"..."Easy Private, its not our turn yet. We'll get to fire as soon as they are all done".... http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

As you can see, tactical combat is an ABSTRACTION. Its not meant to be a 'realistic' space sim. What it does is give you the chance to pit your designs and tactics against the enemy's within the FRAMEWORK provided by the tactical engine. The 'no retreat wall' is simply another abstraction added in order to make the game work.

As I've pointed out before, there is going to be no simple way to implement retreats without screwing up the strategic game. I'd like to see them add something as an option so everyone can be happy. I just would NOT want to see it added without the option to turn it off. IMO, adding retreats without ALOT of other tweaking would result in an EXTREMELY boring multiplayer game.

If any of you ever played Lords of the Realm and LotR II, you might recall how easy it was to split your armies down, run in around the enemies territory and lay waste to their econ. Any time they tried to attack you, you just ran from the battle. It even included a 'morale penalty' for running, but a single army could still do it enough to ruin you. This is what would happen in SE4 too. Players would send fleet after fleet into your territory and never engage your fleets. You'd have to defend EVERY planet individually. I think the game would be HORRIBLE if a retreat system were to be tacked on.

The only way it could work IMO would be a pretty hefty re-vamp of the tactical engine, the ship design process (so smaller ships are faster and more maneuverable) and the strategic movement. Without those changes, the retreats will simply be another exploit for players to use.

Talenn

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Talenn, Yeah I know. It's an abstraction. And I agree WWII would have been very interesting if ships hadn't had inertia and the defender would have had to wait to fire until after the attacker.

For the record I don't really like the inertialess shipmovement in combat all that much but I can live with it.

But I really dislike the "I fire You fire" system we have now since it gives such a tremendous advantage to whoever gets to fire first. I have expressed this dislike in countless threads and suggested other systems I think would be better where both sides fire at the same time to eliminate the firstfire advantage. I won't go into detail here and now, but the bottomline is I'd be very happy if the combat system got an overhaul.

As for retreating ships/fleets causing havoc in your rear, that's what fixed defenses are for. And to avoid that you have stop them at the warppoints and that's what warp point defense is all about. And when conducting a warp point assault the only way to retreat would be back through the warp point. And if you don't want the enemy to run away from you need to have faster ships to run him down with and keep him engaged so he can't retreat and damage/cripple as many as possible for the main battleline to deal with once they catch up. That's what engine destroying weapons are for.

I think it can be done. I also agree it should be an option so those who want it can use it and those don't won't have to. I have seen many good ideas on how to implement it and with a little thinking and later testing I seriously believe it can be done and not be abusable.

Just came up with another idea on how to do it. Split every sector into quadrants (subsectors, whatever) with the center being surrounded by 8 adjacent quadrants. Like this:

XXX
XCX
XXX

Where your ships are at the end of combat is where they are in the sector after combat and their movement is limited by where the enemies ships are. A=Attacker who retreats, D=Defender, C=Center

Sectorquadrants:

XXX
ACD
XXX

Retreaters move choicies in systemsectors: C=Combatsector, B=Blocked, A=Available to move to, I=Chance of intercept depending on enemy orders.

AIB
ACB
AIB

With a kind of zone of control system like this (or related) the retreating player can't just sit out the battle and then move past the defender but has to circle around. That costs movement points which gives the defender a chance to intercept. It can still move back to where it came from which should be back home and if it isn't you're in trouble anyway. I'm not saying that this system alone would do the trick, it's just another idea the needs refining and combined with one or more of the others brought up here it should end up being a working system in the end.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Ok,

To all those guys who want to do a massive revamp of tactical combat here are some things to consider that are a MAJOR roadblock (IMHO)

1) Use of supplies while retreating. Can someone explain to me how a ship that has enough supplies to travel MONTHS! (as each game turn is a month) can use them up in 1 turn retreating from combat? If you running you are just using fuel and since in space you just get up to a speed and "coast" even that consumption isn't that much.

2) if stratigic movement (SM) is used to retreat they you need to keep track of how many SM's each fleet had before combat so that they don't go over their max amount. Which would allow that a ship that has faster engines still getting caught if they have less SM.

3) If you allow for unlimited SM after retreating then the ratio of movement between ships is all off. ( Hurm if I attack his fleet and retreat I can get to that wormhole this turn rather than next turn)

4) Which way does a fleet retreat too?

5) I could lead to never ending combats, my fleet runs, they follow, they run into another one of my fleets they run etc.

6) Turn rates?! I suggest if you want that level of detail play Star fleet battles.

7) The more factors you put into the game, the level of coding increases geometricly. Maybe a better solution would be to design an add-on program that we could use to play tactical combat and then have the results put back in to SE IV.


This is a empire high level kinda game. I think that the fact you can play with tactical combat is a great option and I love it! But to make this the focus of the game I think is a mistake.

As always this is IMHO.

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

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Seawolf, that sums it very well.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

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

To all those guys who want to do a massive revamp of tactical combat here are some things to consider that are a MAJOR roadblock (IMHO)

1) Use of supplies while retreating. Can someone explain to me how a ship that has enough supplies to travel MONTHS! (as each game turn is a month) can use them up in 1 turn retreating from combat? If you running you are just using fuel and since in space you just get up to a speed and "coast" even that consumption isn't that much.

2) if stratigic movement (SM) is used to retreat they you need to keep track of how many SM's each fleet had before combat so that they don't go over their max amount. Which would allow that a ship that has faster engines still getting caught if they have less SM.

3) If you allow for unlimited SM after retreating then the ratio of movement between ships is all off. ( Hurm if I attack his fleet and retreat I can get to that wormhole this turn rather than next turn)

4) Which way does a fleet retreat too?

5) I could lead to never ending combats, my fleet runs, they follow, they run into another one of my fleets they run etc.

6) Turn rates?! I suggest if you want that level of detail play Star fleet battles.

7) The more factors you put into the game, the level of coding increases geometricly. Maybe a better solution would be to design an add-on program that we could use to play tactical combat and then have the results put back in to SE IV.


This is a empire high level kinda game. I think that the fact you can play with tactical combat is a great option and I love it! But to make this the focus of the game I think is a mistake.

As always this is IMHO.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) Haven't you noticed that going 7 sectors in a turn takes more fuel than going 3? So clearly they aren't using "get up to a speed and coast" engines. Sci-fi junkies know very well that space empires can't depend on 20th century, action-reaction engines. The amount of fuel that you'd have to carry is outrageous. Instead, you have to warp space or some wild idea like that. For such engines, it's not silly to propose that running at top speed uses fuel much faster than normal cruising.

2)& 3) I hadn't originally proposed using SM points to retreat. Just comparing max SM to max SM, in order to find relative top speeds. But you bring up a good point: a fleet with only 5 SM left out of 8 maybe shouldn't be allowed to outrun a fleet with 6 left out of 6. This might be the solution to the worries that people have about never being able to force a fast fleet into a decisive battle. If an attacker has SM=7 and defender only has SM=6, then the attacker would always use up at least 1 SM moving onto the defender, so now their remaining SM is tied (assuming the defender didn't move).

4) A retreating attacker moves back in a straight line in the direction he came from. A retreating defender moves in the direction opposite to the attacker's incoming direction. This allows the attacker to set the line of retreat. If the opponent gives chase, both fleets get moved. If the chaser catches the retreater, then combat takes place in the appropriate sector. This rule prevents an attacker from using retreats to get past a defender. Combine this with a rule that one can't retreat through a wormhole (because you have to use wormhole engines or something). So a slow fleet could pin a fast one up against a wormhole and force a battle. One wierd artifact is that you could also pin the enemy up against the system edge. Although that's another nice way to force a combat, it is just the kind of artificial boundary that we don't like in combat. However, we could come up with some sort of reasonable explanation for this much more easily than for combat. (Examples: you'd run into the Kuiper belt, you'd be too far from the star to use your gravitic engines, you'd run into the interstellar microwormholes, etc.)

5) I don't think that's likely to happen, unless the players are really stupid.

6) Just for the record, I never suggested that. It's a cool idea but probably beyond the scope of SEIV.

7) I really think that my retreat suggestion would not require much extra code. Your suggestion is also a good one: put in an option to have the tactical results entered manually. This has been suggested before, with regard to ground combat, and I think it is excellent.

I agree that MM shouldn't concentrate on the tactical too much. However, allowing retreats as I have suggested is meant to improve the _strategic_ part of the game. Also, trade and diplomacy are not very good at this point, and it is hard to win with just intel ops, so the combat part is most of the game.

Consider the following: Player A creates a warp point into B's system. He brings his 10-ship fleet through, intent on destroying colonies. But B has a 15-ship fleet nearby in that system (guarding a stable warp point). Under current rules, it wouldn't do A any good to split up his fleet, because B would just destroy them one after another using his whole fleet. But with my retreat rules, A can set B a strategic puzzle by breaking up his fleet. Should B keep his fleet together and maul most of A's ships while allowing some of them to attack his colony? Should B split up his fleet as well and try to take out all of A's ships? Or should B fall back on his colony(colonies)? That is all _strategy_.
Or consider if B has two 5-ship fleets, and they use all their MP to join up into a 10-ship fleet close to A's fleet. Player A attacks, thinking he can take them on, but once he sees them, he wishes he could retreat. Under the current system, he's dead. Under my suggested retreat rules, he's got a chance of running back to his wormhole. That is more realistic and improves the _strategic_ play of the game.

The only problem I see with my suggestion is that it creates more decisions for the AI to make.

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

dmm,


It was a post to eveeryone not just you. I also notice you didn't talk about the supply usage or the fact that some ships would get more movement than others.

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) 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.


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

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

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. Combat should not dominate it.

However, does anyone have any comments on my earlier suggestion? - reproduced as follows;

I do like the idea though of factoring in ship speeds and relative supply levels into a retreat system. 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
 

Since you didn't read my prior post it seems,

Supply should have no impact on retreat. If the ship has enough supplies to travel for months in space then they should be able to run away from a fight.

Can not average speed, if so then ships that would have been left behind would surive and that makes no sense.

WHy have min combat turns? if you can run away why would you hang around then run?

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

Re: Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule
 

Supply, I tend to agree on, given the overall scale.

Minimum turns - that just reflects issues such as surprise or trapping of an opponent, although the tactical system doesnt reflect these scenarios in the ship dispositions. Primarily it is suggested just to make the system work ie not disrupt the strategic game level but provide a little variation in the tactical level.

As for how speed differences are taken into account, perhaps slower ships should be left behind. In the scheme of things it may not be such an issue, I for one tend to build colony and cargo warships (based on Destroyer and Lt Cruiser hulls in the early game) just to get that extra one movement point (maintenance cost is hardly ever an issue really) so my ships all have the same movement rate anyway....

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