Simple, Reasonable Disengage/Retreat Rule

[dmm]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seawolf:
Ok,

To all those guys who want to do a massive revamp of tactical combat here are some things to consider that are a MAJOR roadblock (IMHO)

1) Use of supplies while retreating. Can someone explain to me how a ship that has enough supplies to travel MONTHS! (as each game turn is a month) can use them up in 1 turn retreating from combat? If you running you are just using fuel and since in space you just get up to a speed and "coast" even that consumption isn't that much.

2) if stratigic movement (SM) is used to retreat they you need to keep track of how many SM's each fleet had before combat so that they don't go over their max amount. Which would allow that a ship that has faster engines still getting caught if they have less SM.

3) If you allow for unlimited SM after retreating then the ratio of movement between ships is all off. ( Hurm if I attack his fleet and retreat I can get to that wormhole this turn rather than next turn)

4) Which way does a fleet retreat too?

5) I could lead to never ending combats, my fleet runs, they follow, they run into another one of my fleets they run etc.

6) Turn rates?! I suggest if you want that level of detail play Star fleet battles.

7) The more factors you put into the game, the level of coding increases geometricly. Maybe a better solution would be to design an add-on program that we could use to play tactical combat and then have the results put back in to SE IV.


This is a empire high level kinda game. I think that the fact you can play with tactical combat is a great option and I love it! But to make this the focus of the game I think is a mistake.

As always this is IMHO.

---

1) Haven't you noticed that going 7 sectors in a turn takes more fuel than going 3? So clearly they aren't using "get up to a speed and coast" engines. Sci-fi junkies know very well that space empires can't depend on 20th century, action-reaction engines. The amount of fuel that you'd have to carry is outrageous. Instead, you have to warp space or some wild idea like that. For such engines, it's not silly to propose that running at top speed uses fuel much faster than normal cruising.

2)& 3) I hadn't originally proposed using SM points to retreat. Just comparing max SM to max SM, in order to find relative top speeds. But you bring up a good point: a fleet with only 5 SM left out of 8 maybe shouldn't be allowed to outrun a fleet with 6 left out of 6. This might be the solution to the worries that people have about never being able to force a fast fleet into a decisive battle. If an attacker has SM=7 and defender only has SM=6, then the attacker would always use up at least 1 SM moving onto the defender, so now their remaining SM is tied (assuming the defender didn't move).

4) A retreating attacker moves back in a straight line in the direction he came from. A retreating defender moves in the direction opposite to the attacker's incoming direction. This allows the attacker to set the line of retreat. If the opponent gives chase, both fleets get moved. If the chaser catches the retreater, then combat takes place in the appropriate sector. This rule prevents an attacker from using retreats to get past a defender. Combine this with a rule that one can't retreat through a wormhole (because you have to use wormhole engines or something). So a slow fleet could pin a fast one up against a wormhole and force a battle. One wierd artifact is that you could also pin the enemy up against the system edge. Although that's another nice way to force a combat, it is just the kind of artificial boundary that we don't like in combat. However, we could come up with some sort of reasonable explanation for this much more easily than for combat. (Examples: you'd run into the Kuiper belt, you'd be too far from the star to use your gravitic engines, you'd run into the interstellar microwormholes, etc.)

5) I don't think that's likely to happen, unless the players are really stupid.

6) Just for the record, I never suggested that. It's a cool idea but probably beyond the scope of SEIV.

7) I really think that my retreat suggestion would not require much extra code. Your suggestion is also a good one: put in an option to have the tactical results entered manually. This has been suggested before, with regard to ground combat, and I think it is excellent.

I agree that MM shouldn't concentrate on the tactical too much. However, allowing retreats as I have suggested is meant to improve the _strategic_ part of the game. Also, trade and diplomacy are not very good at this point, and it is hard to win with just intel ops, so the combat part is most of the game.

Consider the following: Player A creates a warp point into B's system. He brings his 10-ship fleet through, intent on destroying colonies. But B has a 15-ship fleet nearby in that system (guarding a stable warp point). Under current rules, it wouldn't do A any good to split up his fleet, because B would just destroy them one after another using his whole fleet. But with my retreat rules, A can set B a strategic puzzle by breaking up his fleet. Should B keep his fleet together and maul most of A's ships while allowing some of them to attack his colony? Should B split up his fleet as well and try to take out all of A's ships? Or should B fall back on his colony(colonies)? That is all _strategy_.
Or consider if B has two 5-ship fleets, and they use all their MP to join up into a 10-ship fleet close to A's fleet. Player A attacks, thinking he can take them on, but once he sees them, he wishes he could retreat. Under the current system, he's dead. Under my suggested retreat rules, he's got a chance of running back to his wormhole. That is more realistic and improves the _strategic_ play of the game.

The only problem I see with my suggestion is that it creates more decisions for the AI to make.

[Seawolf]

dmm,


It was a post to eveeryone not just you. I also notice you didn't talk about the supply usage or the fact that some ships would get more movement than others.

As far as your example goes in A where you have a 10 ship fleet verses a 15 ship fleet ( I assuming that you are playing in a simultanous game otherwise this doesn't apply) if there is more than 1 colony to destroy if makes sense to split up your fleet and force him to do the same. if not you get a free shot at a colony or 2.

But in either example the strategy, IMO, is the decision you make to split the fleet or attack a group of ships. Not, having an out in case it was a bad decision.


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

[God Emperor]

I must agree with the earlier comment that the game is a strategic level game with a tactical option to test your ships, similar to MOO2. Combat should not dominate it.

However, does anyone have any comments on my earlier suggestion? - reproduced as follows;

I do like the idea though of factoring in ship speeds and relative supply levels into a retreat system. I know it would involve a bit of code but the following might help;

Include a retreat order option. If selected by a player, the code looks at the relative average speed and supply differences of the attackers warships and defenders (retreating player)ships (all ships, not just warships) and modifies the combat round length with 20 turns being the base. The calculated number could be kept hidden to keep a bit of suspense ("damn when is this combat round going to end", says the retreating player).

I would suggest that there be a minimum combat round length and a maximum (most players who want to retreat are usually dead by turn 30, so theres not too much point going beyong this).
The base 20 combat rounds would also help reduce the oddity of a tiny ship with 1 or 2 missiles taking out decent sized planet in one combat round.
Thoughts?

[Seawolf]

Since you didn't read my prior post it seems,

Supply should have no impact on retreat. If the ship has enough supplies to travel for months in space then they should be able to run away from a fight.

Can not average speed, if so then ships that would have been left behind would surive and that makes no sense.

WHy have min combat turns? if you can run away why would you hang around then run?

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

[God Emperor]

Supply, I tend to agree on, given the overall scale.

Minimum turns - that just reflects issues such as surprise or trapping of an opponent, although the tactical system doesnt reflect these scenarios in the ship dispositions. Primarily it is suggested just to make the system work ie not disrupt the strategic game level but provide a little variation in the tactical level.

As for how speed differences are taken into account, perhaps slower ships should be left behind. In the scheme of things it may not be such an issue, I for one tend to build colony and cargo warships (based on Destroyer and Lt Cruiser hulls in the early game) just to get that extra one movement point (maintenance cost is hardly ever an issue really) so my ships all have the same movement rate anyway....

[Barnacle Bill]

quote:

---

Originally posted by God Emperor:
I must agree with the earlier comment that the game is a strategic level game with a tactical option to test your ships, similar to MOO2.

---

I quite disagree. Although less obvious in SE4 than in previous iterations of the series, the SE series of games is derived from the board game Starfire. Starfire began as a tactical game, designed by one of the guys behind Star Fleet Battles as a game in which battles between relatively large fleets could be resolved in a reasonable amount of time. Not until the third expansion module to the first edition rules did Starfire even include a strategic system (beyond a few suggestions about how the cost of retrofitting ships might be handled in a campaign). That initial strategic system was very simple, and also rather similar to the SE games. It was essentially intended primarily to provide a strategic context for the tactical battles. The next edition of the rules introduced an entirely new and much more complex stategic system, including multiple levels of play: movement between systems, double-blind movement within enormous & realistically scaled system maps, and "interception" level to cover what happens between when opposing fleets enter the same system map hex and when they are close enough for the tactical map, and the tactical level. The game is now in its 4th rules edition. The trend recently, after peaking in complexity with the first iteration of strategic rules for the 3rd edition, has been to reduce the strategic complexity to get rid of record keeping and refocus the game on fighting tactical battles (with enough strategic stuff to provide context). Even so, SE4 is still a lot simpler than the latest strategic system in Starfire.

MOO, on the other hand, is derived from Stellar Conquest. Stellar Conquest hardly even had a tactical system - if two fleets entered the same hex on the strategic map the players rolled dice for each ship to see if it killed its target until one side was eliminated or withdrew. The original MOO copied everything but combat almost exactly from Stellar Conquest, except it had more planet types & more techs. So, the tactical system in MOO is clearly an add-on to a strategic game.

[Jubala]

Quick question. Is retreat possible in Starfire and how is it done?