Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII

[LGM]

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.

[PvK]

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

[Cyrien]

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.

[ 13 February 2002: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

[capnq]

quote:

---

We would need a Double Wall formation added in.

---

TDM-ModPack adds Double Wall, and several other formations. There are other mods that use it, also.

[HEMAN]

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.

[ 14 February 2002: Message edited by: HEMAN ]

[Emperor's Child]

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.

[dmm]

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.