Jubala et al:
Yeah, but WWII would have also been interesting if Naval Combat had had no inertia.
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"....
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