Disengage Button

[tmcc]

There is an exploit built in to the current version. You can switch to sector view after that first combat and phsically reposition your ships right next to the enemy ships. Issue the second attack order and the battle will begin with the ships in the positions you just set.

[Suicide Junkie]

Slick:
Your method falls apart when there are more than two clusters of ships.

Under your system (and also sometimes under SE5's current detection system), you can have battlegroup A smash battlegroup B, and then turn to head for battlegroup C, which was started far off and is charging in. But the combat ends because the distance between enemy ships just went up (B died and C is far away still).

[Suicide Junkie]

You also have to decide how to charge strategic movement points for retreats.

And what happens if they have none.

Consider mostly simultaneous games, since these issues are most important in multiplayer games.


Running away is realistic, yes, but is it fun?

[Slick]

SJ, I disagree. The initial critical range should be large enough and the decay function slow enough so as to let normal battles play out without having an excessively long futile chase scenario. They only need to address a couple of cases:

- A fleeing from B with A & B traveling at the same speed and out of weapons range,

- 2 or more armed but immobile combatants trying to engage. This could be the last part of a battle which started out with mobile ships on all sides.


These could be chosen so as to make A vs. B vs. C not time out the combat session. It should be slow enough to ensure that any closing ship/fleet will be allowed to engage. Yes, the system would have to account for the worst case which is:

Example with 3 empires, but would apply to > 3.


A, B, C are all enemies of each other

A same speed as B, but faster than C,

A running away from pursuing B; C initially pursuing B but losing ground.

The initial range and decay rate should be chosen so as to allow A to retreat then B turn around to engage C and battle until resolved. There would have to be ranges calculated for A-B, A-C & B-C. Yes, initially this case would look like a draw, because A-B would be constant and A-C & B-C would initially be getting larger. The game should immediately recognize A-B won't get smaller (in simultaneous games the retreat strategy won't suddenly change) and allow A to retreat. Then B will turn around and engage C, decreasing the range B-C. So the rate of decay should be slow enough to allow combat to finsih without timing out too early.

A key to making this would would be that any time weapons are fired while in range with a ToHit % >0, this should extend the range ticker because combat is still occurring and it has the potential to cause damage leading to combat resolution.


========


With respect to charging strategic movement points for retreats, if the game is going to allow disengaging, then it must allow that 1 extra strategic retreat movement point, even if it had none before battle. If a ship/fleet has no strategic movement points at the time of battle, there are 2 cases:

1) The ship/fleet used its movement points during the turn and engaged other ships on its last movement point. In this case the ships should be moved to the previous sector prior to engagement. Not very controversial.

2) The ship/fleet started the turn with no movement points. Since the ship/fleet has no movement it is probably due to being out of supplies or having severely damaged engines so it is unlikely that they would then still be able to move (at all) or fast enough for longe enough to disengage, but in this case, yes, if the game will allow disengaging, they should be moved randomly to an adjacent sector. Yes, somewhat controversial. A "free" move? Sort of, but if the ship/fleet moved fast enough and far enough to disengage, then the strategic move can be justified by saying that they actually moved that far during the combat while running away. For the fleeing ship/fleet, it could be beneficial or disadvantageous to get this random movement. The destination sector could contain worse conditions ranging from a larger enemy fleet to a damaging sector to a homeworld sector bristling with with destructive power. Or it could contain a cloaking storm or clear space; just the luck of the draw. Yes, it would be mostly beneficial since most sectors are open space, but they earned it by disengaging. If it was immobile to start, though, it is very unlikely that it would be able to successfully retreat, so if it pulls this off, it deserves that "free" movement point to take its chances in a neighboring sector.


=========


Is running away fun? That depends on the player and the degree to which you run. The real question is probably unchangeable at this point, but is: Is the game better or worse with the ability to disengage in battle? Personally I think it is a good option. Obviously this one of those "you can't please everyone" issues. Like I said in the post above, the exploits of disengaging need to be addressed or the whole idea spoils the game.


Coding this will obviously be more involved than my example, but combat is such an integral part of the game that it should be well thought out and constructedt so as to prevent exploits.

[Suicide Junkie]

I wasn't talking about a chase (and flee) scenario... it is moving away from one thing to attack another.
Also, it is extreme-range missile duels.

Your expanded plan looks good, and some simple code optimization should keep it running quickly too.

-

The main problem I still have with the infintite running away thing is that nobody has to engage in combat until they want to (such as if they're protecting a slow ship, say, or glassing a homeworld).
You can't intercept anybody that dosen't want to be intercepted in deep space, and even warppoint defenses are nerfed.

Being able to outmanouever someone on the strategic system map is great.
Catching them on the strategic map, and then having degenerate "combats" with runaways is not fun. Basically it means you can't catch them on the strategic map, you can only move into the same sector.

Its like a street "fight" where one guy just keeps jogging away from the other guy... Vs ...A boxing ring where the little guy can still dodge and run around the outside but at least a few punches actually get thrown before the bell rings.

[AngleWyrm]

The main problem I still have with the infintite running away thing is that nobody has to engage in combat until they want to

That might have to do with the speed cap in stock SEV. If the game were such that you could design ships that had different speeds, it could be different. like if I could design a ship that had just one gun, but travelled at 18, or another that had no guns but travelled at 24.

As for the way combat ends: I like the idea of ending combat when both parties agree to end it.

[Suicide Junkie]

QNP dosen't help the situation much, though...
Those fast ships are going to have to be light on armor and guns to get that speed, and will thus get their asses kicked by the warships that are running away

What I'd like to see is a circular map limit.
There would be no corners to be caught in, and even if you're heading right towards the wall, your ships will end up randomly turning left or right to escape. Then it becomes a more reasonable chase around the perimeter. Equal speed ships will slowly catch up to the runners, while faster ships do get to stay away.

[Phoenix-D]

Being able to pin them in a corner EDIT: or against a side doesn't make much sense either SJ, and having battles so large no one can manuver is just silly.

A faster ship should be able to keep ahead until supplies run out or its boxed in; the only problem with the SEV system IMO is the later isn't really possible.

[Suicide Junkie]

As I said, in theory yeah, that's what should happen.

But it is not fun in practice. I plan to make my mods fun.
If I have to put the combatants in a steel cage to make it entertaining to watch, so be it