Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Bring back retreat option from SEIII. The ability to retreat should be available. Perhaps give it a 3 turn delay. Either way this should be an option returned to the game.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

A 3-5 turn delay. hmm, that might be work. E-mail Malfador with that.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Ya, sounds good to me.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Would this retreat be limited to "back where you came from"?

Perhaps the turn-delay required for retreat should be 30 / (combat speed).

[ 12 February 2002: Message edited by: suicide_junkie ]</p>

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Yes, retreating ships should end up moving strategically the direction they leave the tactical map (as in SE III). This would also want the addition of the SE III movement tactic "Retreat" (keeping "Don't Get Hurt" as it is).

A comprehensive solution probably requires some thorough design of how exactly it works both in turn-based and simultaneous movement.

For example, do you prohibit retreating in the direction of hostile-occupied sectors? If not, then does the retreat start another battle? (This was the main thing MM brought up as a problem in SE3).

In SE3 (which is turn-based), strategic movement points were required and consumed by retreating, which made it possible to eventually run down a slower ship. With simultaneous mode, it's not clear how this would be accomplished (maybe by adjusting starting positions - actually, currently in simultaneous, if you overrun a fleet heading away from you, combat starts with the ships deployed in the same part of the tactical map... done correctly, that might work out ok).

It's a complicated problem to solve completely with the abstractions of SE IV, but it wouldn't be impossible. The current box around the tactical map isn't very satisfying, at least to me.

PvK

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

I recall MM saying they were considering bringing it back for SE5... So it's kinda a break even on it. We get it back, but not for a year or so.

I think if enough letters are emailed to MM demanding it, MM would re-add it.

But I don't know if it's worth the number of hard code changes...

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Hadrian Aventine:
I recall MM saying they were considering bringing it back for SE5... So it's kinda a break even on it. We get it back, but not for a year or so.

I think if enough letters are emailed to MM demanding it, MM would re-add it.

But I don't know if it's worth the number of hard code changes...<hr></blockquote>

Actually, all we need is some way to avoid getting caught in the 'invisible corner'. He wouldn't have to implement strategic movement, just let the pursued ship 'disappear' from combat if it gets a certain distance ahead of the pursuers. Out of range of all weapons when it hits the wall, maybe? Something like that.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

The problem though is the "retreat forward" tactic. You want to get through an enemy position, so you engage them, and immediately retreat, getting back to the strategic map, where you then go forward. They can never intercept you. Or, worse, you move onto an enemy homeworld, then immediately retreat in tactical. With no strategic movement, you'd be on the homeworld sector, and could lay mines, use stellar manipulations (destroy planet), etc. That's why a retreat needs to result in strategic movement (as in SE3), or at least, restricted strategic movement and actions following the retreat.

PvK

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

IMO, in a game system as abstracted as SE4, any retreat function is just going to cause FAR more problems that it solves, especially by players exploiting it against the AI.

In order for a retreat system to really be viable, some or all of the following would be necessary:

1) some sort of 'mass based' movement system so that smaller ships were truly faster and/or more economical per movement point than larger ships.

2) some sort of inertial movement system and/or maneuver system such that ships cant simply up and change direction at will.

3) some sort of an 'orders blackout' on retreating ships while they return to some point(closest friendly base?).

Without some or all the above, any retreat system is just a disaster waiting to happen. How do you defend your systems? Maybe on the Warp Points, but only if the retreaters are sent back through it (which seems odd if you drive them AWAY from the WP in combat).

Also, once in your system, they can dance around your defenders at will and glass your colonies unless you have local superiority at ALL of them...not likely.

If there was an easy way to implement it, I'm sure it would already be in the game.

Talenn

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

How about a simpler system where retreat will be allowed only:
1)After a fixed number of round of tactical combat.
2)For ships with a tactical movement greater than enemy ships.
3)Exactly in the location of the strategic map from where the retreating ships come from, just before starting tactical combat.
4)If the retreating ships have strategic movement points left.
5)Eventually the retreat option can be set to cost a number of strategic movement points greater than 1.

This will not allow to bypass defenders with "forward retreat" tactics and, beaucause the retreat move is a backward move to the starting strategic position, it can't start another tactical battle.

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: Marco ]

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: Marco ]</p>

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Personally I would not like to have a retreat option back. I always hated to chase down single ships in SE3 until I had them in the corner of the strategic map (which is just as unrealistic as having corners in tactical). So you will always have "no where to run to"-corners, just on different scales.

Just my thoughts,
Rollo

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

I haven’t played SE 3 but I think that if you make the retreat option cost 2 or more strategic movement points, the retreating ships can't go far away. Once exhausted the strategic movement points left, they will be blocked for the rest of the turn.
I think that the problem is the direction of the retreat in the strategic map if the retreating ships not belong to the moving player, in this case there is not the possibility of a “backward move” in the strategic map and this can trigger others tactical battles. A possible solution is to allow retreat for defending ships only in strategic location without enemy ships and, if possible, in a direction opposite to the direction from where the attacking ships came from in the strategic map.
Marco.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

What about a part for ships that prevents the retreat of enemies, like the Warp-Inhibit-Device in MOO2 ?

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
What about a part for ships that prevents the retreat of enemies, like the Warp-Inhibit-Device in MOO2 ?<hr></blockquote>

Good idea.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

It is simply totally goof-ball that a ship with movement 10 (5 in tactical) can't ever retreat from a battle with a ship of movement 6 (3 in tactical). A less-than-perfect retreat system is better than none. Make it optional, so that those who hate the idea can opt out.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dmm:
It is simply totally goof-ball that a ship with movement 10 (5 in tactical) can't ever retreat from a battle with a ship of movement 6 (3 in tactical). A less-than-perfect retreat system is better than none. Make it optional, so that those who hate the idea can opt out.<hr></blockquote>

Here Here, I fully second this dmm - if anyone thinks about it logically, the game should use a floating combat map, if it did, no way would a speed 2 dreadnought ever be able to stop a speed 6 destroyer should the destroyer want to run away - this has got to be correct, the dreadnought would then have to rely on superior weight of metal to hit the ship before it got out of range, long range firepower (anti drive missiles) or just pinning the destroyer into defending a target it cannot disengage from - this would then increase the importance of fast screening vessels to perform this role and add to the strategic considerations of the game - roll it on as an option please

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

The idea of making it optional is probably the best one so far, makes both sides happy. I for one would like to see a ship that is twice as fast (or more) be able to escape, but that could lead to major frustation in not being able to chase down a quick enemy - so then the only option left to you is to take out his homeworld http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Or they should increase the size of the combat area to the whole system or just a larger area. That way your ship can retreat without leaving the area.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Val:
so then the only option left to you is to take out his homeworld http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <hr></blockquote>

IMHO this is incorrect on the basis that is is an accurate reflection of where the game may take you - speed should confer major strategic and tactical advantages and should be as important, and effective, as any weapons development.

Faced by an enemy with superior speed, you would need to research to match that ability, develop weapons that could counteract that ability (eg long range weapons, anti-drive weaponry, that sort of thing) or develop screening vessels capable of keeping up the chase for a longer period.

At present, the lack of effective ability to disengage is IMO probably the most major game-play flaw in SEIV

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Retreat would be nice addition to combat in the game, but with it should also come the ability to cross the map to the other side to bypass enemies (something that would require speed and adequate defenses to survive).

We would need strategy settings such as retreat as a certain damage percentage, retreat immediately, bypass maximizing range to enemy ships, charge right through the enemies formation (this would give Wall some serious disadvantages while today it is the preferred formation). Incidentally, Ancient Greeks and Romans usually doubled their Wall formations to make it harder for enemies to pass through their formations. We would need a Double Wall formation added in.

Formations would also need to support large areas so you could attempt to screen a boundary. Of course screening boundaries in a two dimensional universe are so much easier than in a three dimensional universe. It is hard to mine three dimensional universes as well (hard to keep a uniform distribution in a volume when orbits cross planes).

A larger tactical map where ships do not start on the edges is a good idea. Ship speed would then matter more. Currently you only need tactical speed to match the range differential so that you can always return fire.

Currently in the game because of the way combat works (non incremental movement) speed does not matter much in combat, unless you are trying to board or ram or avoid one of those(use max range).
--------------
Dream Land:

Now if SE 5 had an inertia based movement system that would be neat. I have not encountered a good strategy game that uses that yet. Think of the things you could do with formations attacking as they pass and turn around and go at it again.
Weapons with fast reload rates could fire several times during a pass while the slower weapons would only get one shot. Ships that have their engines damaged would not be able to turn around as fast and match speed with their formation and would break off. Order parameter would set whether the formation slows down or leaves the slower ships behind. Maybe Tractor beams could be used to tow lagging ships to keep up with the formation's course changes. Of course every ship would need a movement vector showing its speed and course. Once you do this you probably need to go to a point system instead of squares.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Just a couple more notes.

* The idea that a really fast ship can't currently evade or get past a signifigantly slower ship is not true. Just set Don't Get Hurt as the movement tactic, and plot strategic movement that will take you past them after they fail to kill you in tactical. At least, assuming the AI for that movement tactic is smart enough to get out of corners - which I think it might be since I have seen it happen lately - if not then this is a problem that should be fairly easily fixable, although there could be exceptions. (e.g., ten slowish pursuit ships set to "don't get hurt", so they all go to different corners to stomp evading ships)

* Good point about the importance of AI movement tactics to support retreats well. In SE3 for instance, you can set an enemy strength ratio at which movement strategies are switched, for both offensive and defensive situations (in turn-based play), so you can have a strat that will fight until it gets overwhelmed, and then retreat.

PvK

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

I believe that if a combat system similiar to that found in Starships Unlimited was applied then retreat and all sorts of other nice options would become viable in SE.

For those that don't know about this game I believe you can download a shareware type demo or something like of it here. http://www.apezone.com/

I certanly wouldn't recommend the rest of the game system as I enjoy the SE system there but for combat this would probably work. In addition the way they make combat experience give more complex combat manuevers instead of basic advantages etc works better in my mind as to what actual experience in a strategic or tactical situation would be.

Heh... of course such a suggestion would be aimed more at a SE5 than a solution for SE4. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: Cyrien ]</p>

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

I like the retreat,running to the corners. I never did understand why I could not run sometimes http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr> We would need a Double Wall formation added in. <hr></blockquote> TDM-ModPack adds Double Wall, and several other formations. There are other mods that use it, also.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

I have a INTERESTING; idea;

1) Escape valausty / Warp-Inhibit-Device, componet for retreat & prevention. So only special ships that players want,will need it.

I have played se3 many times the retreat is perfect for me?.
FERENGI RULE OF ACQUISITION
#192 Never cheat a KLINGON... unless you're sure you can get away with it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: HEMAN ]</p>

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

If you want to have a retreat option, you almost need to be in simultaneous movement mode. Consider this: At the very end of your movement phase you move into a zone with an enemy ship. This enemy ship then has the ability to chase you out of the zone you occupied, and you could possibly retreat further ahead depending on the logic of where you retreated to. This would be tantamount to getting extra moves.

And from the other perspective, consider the possibility of an enemy coming in to your zone during his movement phase, and your ships retreat from them. He could just simply re-attack you several times, and when it was all said and done you could find your fleet significanty further away from where they started. So how much move would your fleet have to use? I guess you (ie: the computer) would have to just keep track of it and consider that as forced movement which would reduce your fleets own movement in your own phase.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Emperor's Child:
You don't need simultaneous movement. Just make the rule: If you don't have movement left, you can't retreat. (Except maybe allow automatic use of emergency propulsion.) This correctly gives a bonus, in the form of an extra combat option, to ships that have some movement reserve.

Possible problem in turn-based: I don't know if the program keeps track of how much movement a ship has left, after that player's turn is over. But that is a programming problem, not a conceptual problem.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Personally I have mixed feelings about the retreat possibility: I did not like very much this feature in SE III when I had to chase a defenseless ship. But more important it was a possibility to cheat and see what was the exact strength of the enemy in a sector.
But as always it would be easy to make everybody happy: make it an option in the game setup!

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

A possible solution would be to allow a retreating ship only to retreat 1 Square per turn, regardless of the normal speed.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

I too was not a huge fan of the retreat in SEIII, and am happy it's not in SEIV. Consider the following. An attack ship attacks a colony ship. The attack ship has the speed advantage but because the combat starts with the ships on opponsite sides of the screen, the clony ship can retreat before the attacker can catch him. So the attaacker is forced to either allow him to escape, or spend another strategic movement point chasing him into the next sector. BUT, that combat starts with the ships on opposite sides of the combat screen again. Rinse and repeat, until the attacker gives up or the one of the ships runs out of strategic movement points. This has the effect of greatly increasing the speed of the colony ship in relative to the attacker.

Why should a ship be allowed to retreat from battle, and the pursuer is not allowed to follow? The battle should continue until the combat round ends. Now I could be convinced that the comabt screen should be expanded, although I am not sure how much that would add to the turn processing time. This would allow faster ships to evade until the combat ended without getting caught in the corner.

One of the problems with implementing a retreat option with the current simultaneous movement system is the way movement is calculated. Eacn turn is divided into days (30 I think), and then if a ship has 6 movement points, they get to move every five days. If a ship attackes another ship on a "day" when they have strategic movement, the other ship may not have strategic movement availableon that "day" even if they have some left for the "month" (turn).

Geoschmo

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Another option could be a wrap around map. That wouldn't be very realistic, but it might work. One more option could be that it takes more than 1 movement point to retreat (sorry if somebody thought of that before).

Either way I miss the ability to retreat...

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

"But more important it was a possibility to cheat and see what was the exact strength of the enemy in a sector."
Well, you could consider when that happens as them to be scout units, but it is kind of unfair for the defenders, as they get no chance to get at the ship.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by geoschmo:
I too was not a huge fan of the retreat in SEIII, and am happy it's not in SEIV. Consider the following. An attack ship attacks a colony ship. The attack ship has the speed advantage but because the combat starts with the ships on opponsite sides of the screen, the clony ship can retreat before the attacker can catch him. So the attaacker is forced to either allow him to escape, or spend another strategic movement point chasing him into the next sector. BUT, that combat starts with the ships on opposite sides of the combat screen again. Rinse and repeat, until the attacker gives up or the one of the ships runs out of strategic movement points. This has the effect of greatly increasing the speed of the colony ship in relative to the attacker. ...<hr></blockquote>

That's not how the SE III system works. Ships can only retreat if they have unspent movement points from their previous turn. The enemy colony ship can only run if it didn't use all it's movement Last turn. The enemy ship can never move farther than its speed on the strategic map, and only ships that don't use all of their movement have any chance to retreat. If a scout of the same speed moves into your sector and retreats, it will have used two movement points, so you will be able to chase it down unless it has a speed advantage of at least two greater than yours. Also, with the SE III ability to specify a change in strategy based on enemy strength, if you have a battlefleet that you don't want scouted by trivial enemy ships, you can place a screen of light ships in between that fleet and the enemy, with orders to chase up to a strength ratio, or retreat if a real threat appears.

PvK

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

IMHO, something serious is lacking if ships can't retreat from combat (as of present). The current "space is nothing but a little square" setup means that even if I've a dedicated fast scout it won't be able to make use of its speed advantage to survive. Do you really think ships will get trapped in a corner in combat in real life 300 years from now?!?! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif No offense intended to anybody but the argument on whether a retreat order should be implemented as some of you suggested is quite pointless - it SHOULD. The real question is HOW you are going to do it.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

CW, The argument that retreat should not be allowed is only pointless if you disagree with it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I for one think it has a valid point. Many games do not allow units to leave the combat phase before it is over. And, as much as I hate to use the "R" word, this has some realism to it. In real life war if one side retreats, the other side doesn't always stop shooting at them. They will often persue and attempt to destroy them. Now, if the retreating unit can disengage without being destroyed, and has sufficent speed to withdraw without being run down, yes eventually they should be able to get away. That is why I would agree with modifying the combat screen to allow more room for movement. But that's different than allowing one side to completely disengage from combat unilaterally.

Pvk, I believe nothing I said about the SEIII system is incorrect. Please explain.

I was using the example of an attacking ship trying to run down a slower, retreating ship to point out an obvious flaw in the SEIII retreat system, that is the fact that by retreating a slower ship can in effect increase his speed in relation to the persuer. As I stated eventually he would run out of strategic movement and be caught, if the attacker felt it was worthwhile to persue. But that could draw the attacker out of position as others have pointed out.

Your example was different, one of unit attacking and withdrawing, more of a skirmishing type action. Something that could be done with a larger combat screen as well. The "scouting" unit could attack, and then evade for the duration of the combat phase. Then with their strategic movement withdraw afterwards.

Geoschmo

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Ok, let me quote a smaller part. Regarding your colony ship example:

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by geoschmo:
... This has the effect of greatly increasing the speed of the colony ship in relative to the attacker.
<hr></blockquote>

I don't think it increases the speed of the colony ship in any way. Say it is speed 5 and the warship is speed 6 (the typical ion engine example). In the first place, if the colony ship used its strategic movement on its turn (the usual situation), then it can't retreat and gets stomped immediately. However, if the colony ship didn't move at all on its turn, then it will be able to retreat five times. If the warship starts adjacent to the colony ship, it will be able to try to engage it six times, and on the sixth time, it will catch and stomp the colony ship. This actually coincides quite accurately with what would be expected for a speed 6 ship to catch a speed 5 ship that is one sector away and wants to flee - in a precise simultaneous movement system, this is exactly what would happen.

PvK

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

I completely second the system explained by PvK, but I think there is some more point to solve:
1. What happen if the retreat movement is in a strategic location with others enemy units, may be from another player ? In this case another tactical battle begins among three or more players, very difficult to handle with the new retreat option. A possible solution: prevent retreat in strategic locations with enemy units.
2. The direction of the retreat in the strategic map: a “forward retreat” tactic to bypass enemy units, let say a enemy blocking fleet at a warp point, must be allowed or not ?

Marco

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by geoschmo:
...
I suppose that allowing retreat would simulate the effect, but really combat should not occur to begin with, until the persuer catches up to the colony ship.
<hr></blockquote>

Yes, definitely, unless only some of the ships retreat. That is, the game should determine which ships are retreating and if they have the speed to do so and a legitimate retreat direction, and then only start a combat where there are ships that aren't running or that are too slow to get away.

PvK

Edit/P.S.: Of course, ships should still be able to change their minds during combat and retreat, for example if they get bLasted but still have speed.

[ 21 February 2002: Message edited by: PvK ]</p>

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Marco:
I completely second the system explained by PvK, but I think there is some more point to solve:
1. What happen if the retreat movement is in a strategic location with others enemy units, may be from another player ? In this case another tactical battle begins among three or more players, very difficult to handle with the new retreat option. A possible solution: prevent retreat in strategic locations with enemy units.
2. The direction of the retreat in the strategic map: a “forward retreat” tactic to bypass enemy units, let say a enemy blocking fleet at a warp point, must be allowed or not ?

Marco<hr></blockquote>

Yes these both have to be resolved.

SE III denied retreats into sectors with hostile ships.

I mentioned earlier that forward retreats have to be limited somehow. I thought SE3 did pretty well by simply basing retreat direction on map edge used. Thus, it was possible (in tactical combat, anyway) to break through enemy forces, but only if you actually did so in tactical combat.

PvK

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Pvk, You are correct to a point. When I stated that the slower ship is gaining speed, I was talking about the fact that in the combat screen the attacker can close on them, and then after they retreat and the attacker persues, they are back to the same distance at the begining of the next combat.

You have a good point about in a true simultaneous motion system the attacker and the colony ship would reach the same point at about the same time the colony ship ran out of movement points. Of course the attacker doesn't actually have to reach the same point as the colony ship, only reach the point of where their weapons can be in range. But coding that would probably complicate matters so much that it wouldn't be worth it.

SEIV doesn't have true simultaneous turn movement. What he has done is break up the turn into 30 "days", and then a ship with 6 movement poinst gets to move every 5 days, and a ship with 5 movement points gets to move every 6 days.

I suppose that allowing retreat would simulate the effect, but really combat should not occur to begin with, until the persuer catches up to the colony ship.

Geoschmo

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------
I mentioned earlier that forward retreats have to be limited somehow. I thought SE3 did pretty well by simply basing retreat direction on map edge used. Thus, it was possible (in tactical combat, anyway) to break through enemy forces, but only if you actually did so in tactical combat.
PvK
--------------------------------------------------

Sadly I never played SE III, nevertheless I agree this is a possible valid solution, but my question was about the strategic implications of this tactic, specially for AI players. In the situation of a warp point defended by a blocking fleet, how the defender can counter the tactic of waves of fasts ships slipping trough the blockade by forward retreat ? If the forward retreating ships are not pursued, they are free to attack the supposed defended quadrant, if they are pursued, the defending fleet must abandon his blockade position, may be allowing other enemy ships, with movement left, to enter the quadrant. This situation is difficult to handle even for a human player and I doubt a effective counter tactic can be developed for AI. This would eventually result in an advantage for the attacking player, specially against AI defending players, which can unbalance the game.
But this is just my opinion, may be in SE III forward retreat works fine.
Marco.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

With tactical combat in SE III, you can use a warp point to retreat, which I always thought was neat and appropriate.

In SEIII I think the AI won't use warp points when retreating, but will run for the nearest map edge, so it is possible to break through a warp point IF your ships are fast enough or survivable enough to get through the defenders intact. In fact, I remember designing warp point blockade runner ships with retreat orders to try to do this versus a human player blocking a warp point, although I didn't end up using them.

With the defender firing first (as of Gold), I would expect the situation to be OK - a warp point defense fleet would get to bLast anything coming through, but it might be possible to try to break through - sounds interesting rather than a balance problem to me.

A ship that manages to break through a warp point will need a speed advantage of two to be able to elude pursuit from the defenders in turn-based mode. With retreat implemented though, it seems like a "pursue" yes/no order might be called for for simultaneous mode games.

To work really well, the whole issue will doubtless want some careful design, then testing and tweaking, and should probably be an option that can be turned off if desired.

PvK

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Thanks for yours explanations PvK, curiously I even didn’t think at the problem of warp point in these terms, I used to place blockade fleets on the side of the warp points in the defended quadrant, to avoid detection, and every corner of the tactical map would then be good for breaking through. Nevertheless I agree with you, if in SE 4 Gold the defender is always firing and moving first (sorry, I didn’t played the demo) the balance problem is solved.
Marco.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Ya, if you defend the far (enemy's) side of the warp point, then even in SE3 (where warp points can be used during combat) the AI won't be able to "retreat forward," since retreat will just back them away from the warp point. So in order to warp-point-blockade-run, you'd need to hold your own side of the WP, warp, use retreat, and hope to survive the defenders and still have a 2-point speed advantage on the far side.

PvK

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Another thought: my question was wrong because, if I understand correctly, in SE 3 you can place the blocking fleet in your side of warp point and surround it with a circle of others ships, even only one in each place, and in this case the blockade runner enemy ships cannot “forward retreat” because there isn’t a place where retreat without enemy ships. I’m correct?
Thanks.
Marco.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Yeah, Marco has a good point. Although:
a) the AI is never going to do that, and
b) you would need 8 ships per warp point if the WPs aren't at the system edge (and otherwise, you'd still need 5 per WP)

Question1: In SEIII retreat, can you go diagonally? If not, that reduces problem b) by a factor of 2.
Question2: Do mines/satellites/fighters count as unfriendly units to prevent retreat? If they do, then warp point defense isn't much harder at all.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

A) You can go diagonally, but you have to hit one of the four tactical squares in the exact corner of the map. Possible to arrange in tactical, extremely rare in strategic

B) I believe they do.

Re: Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII
 

Marco, yes in SE3 you can put an unarmed escort in each sector around your side, to prevent forward retreat by any survivors of the defense. Or, you can just defend the far side, and not have to.

dmm, for #1, SJ is right. For #2, in SE3 there are no satellites and fighters can deploy strategically - as for mines I don't know - I expect the minefields would have to be detected for them to block retreat, but haven't tested it.

Personally, I tend to think that defending the far side is good enough, and having a chance to break through defenses set up on their own side is more interesting than it is any sort of problem.

PvK