Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule

[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

[dmm]

quote:

---

Originally posted by God Emperor:
[b]1) Can retreat be selected at any time? Or does the player have to be at map edge?
[b]

---

Simplest way would be to allow it only prior to combat, and only for an entire fleet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by God Emperor:
2) What are the consequences of the computer calculating that a retreat doesnt occur? Does the retreating player incur damage?

---

Combat would occur as it does now, but with supplies of both fleets adjusted to take the chase into account.

quote:

---

Originally posted by God Emperor:
3) Is the calculation performed every combat round?

---

I wouldn't allow individual ships to retreat. Less realistic but MUCH simpler.

quote:

---

Originally posted by God Emperor:
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.

---

I think that my idea would enhance the strategic level, even without any exchange of fire. Not only does it reward speed, it also rewards being well-supplied. Think of the Battle of the Bulge, for instance.