Malfador, Bring back retreat option from SEIII - Page 2

Rollo · #11 February 13th, 2002, 11:15 AM

Personally I would not like to have a retreat option back. I always hated to chase down single ships in SE3 until I had them in the corner of the strategic map (which is just as unrealistic as having corners in tactical). So you will always have "no where to run to"-corners, just on different scales.

Just my thoughts,
Rollo

Marco · #12 February 13th, 2002, 12:28 PM

I haven’t played SE 3 but I think that if you make the retreat option cost 2 or more strategic movement points, the retreating ships can't go far away. Once exhausted the strategic movement points left, they will be blocked for the rest of the turn.
I think that the problem is the direction of the retreat in the strategic map if the retreating ships not belong to the moving player, in this case there is not the possibility of a “backward move” in the strategic map and this can trigger others tactical battles. A possible solution is to allow retreat for defending ships only in strategic location without enemy ships and, if possible, in a direction opposite to the direction from where the attacking ships came from in the strategic map.
Marco.

PsychoTechFreak · #13 February 13th, 2002, 01:12 PM

What about a part for ships that prevents the retreat of enemies, like the Warp-Inhibit-Device in MOO2 ?

Rollo · #14 February 13th, 2002, 01:50 PM

quote:
Originally posted by PsychoTechFreak:
What about a part for ships that prevents the retreat of enemies, like the Warp-Inhibit-Device in MOO2 ?

Good idea.

dmm · #15 February 13th, 2002, 05:36 PM

It is simply totally goof-ball that a ship with movement 10 (5 in tactical) can't ever retreat from a battle with a ship of movement 6 (3 in tactical). A less-than-perfect retreat system is better than none. Make it optional, so that those who hate the idea can opt out.

Growltigga · #16 February 13th, 2002, 06:07 PM

quote:
Originally posted by dmm:
It is simply totally goof-ball that a ship with movement 10 (5 in tactical) can't ever retreat from a battle with a ship of movement 6 (3 in tactical). A less-than-perfect retreat system is better than none. Make it optional, so that those who hate the idea can opt out.

Here Here, I fully second this dmm - if anyone thinks about it logically, the game should use a floating combat map, if it did, no way would a speed 2 dreadnought ever be able to stop a speed 6 destroyer should the destroyer want to run away - this has got to be correct, the dreadnought would then have to rely on superior weight of metal to hit the ship before it got out of range, long range firepower (anti drive missiles) or just pinning the destroyer into defending a target it cannot disengage from - this would then increase the importance of fast screening vessels to perform this role and add to the strategic considerations of the game - roll it on as an option please

Val · #17 February 13th, 2002, 06:10 PM

The idea of making it optional is probably the best one so far, makes both sides happy. I for one would like to see a ship that is twice as fast (or more) be able to escape, but that could lead to major frustation in not being able to chase down a quick enemy - so then the only option left to you is to take out his homeworld

tesco samoa · #18 February 13th, 2002, 06:42 PM

Or they should increase the size of the combat area to the whole system or just a larger area. That way your ship can retreat without leaving the area.

Growltigga · #19 February 13th, 2002, 07:11 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Val:
so then the only option left to you is to take out his homeworld

IMHO this is incorrect on the basis that is is an accurate reflection of where the game may take you - speed should confer major strategic and tactical advantages and should be as important, and effective, as any weapons development.

Faced by an enemy with superior speed, you would need to research to match that ability, develop weapons that could counteract that ability (eg long range weapons, anti-drive weaponry, that sort of thing) or develop screening vessels capable of keeping up the chase for a longer period.

At present, the lack of effective ability to disengage is IMO probably the most major game-play flaw in SEIV

LGM · #20 February 13th, 2002, 08:40 PM

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.