[Talenn]

Well, like I mentioned below, it has to cut both way. You cant add the retreat option because the imaginary boundary is 'unrealistic or artificial' unless you eliminate the 'unrealistic and artificial' movement system which has no inertia and grants the ability to change facing and direction at will.

The game simply will not work properly otherwise. Sure, you can build smaller, faster ships, but so can they. I suspect the game would degenerate down to a large number of 'mexican standoffs'. If you cant trap and kill the enemy, you will never have decisive battles. And the results will probably be far from your liking. It would certainly take most of the excitement out of the game IMO.

The only way it would work well is to needlessly (IMO) complicate the game. Without that, a large number of your weapons and tactics that are already present will be instantly obsoleted. Further, it doesnt lend itself very well to the 'ugo-igo' turn sequence of the combat. It would prolly need to be reworked into an impulse system or a si-move system of some sort. I just dont see that its really worth the hassle.

I do agree that it can be annoying to not be able to disengage at time, but the potential headache from 'dancing enemies' is not worth the bother IMO.

Still, it would probably be something that would fit well as an OPTION during setup...'Allow retreat from combat: y/n?'. That would at least please all sides, but I'm pretty sure that after a few games with that option on, most folks would start turning off again. The consequences for allowing retreat within the current game framework are very severe IMO.

Talenn