Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule

[dmm]

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?

[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


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

[dmm]

quote:

---

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

---

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.

[LintMan]

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.

[dmm]

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! )

[God Emperor]

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..

[Seawolf]

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

[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. 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?

[Taqwus]

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

[Seawolf]

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