Subtopic	Posts		Updated
	Archive through July 12, 2007	25		07/12 01:41pm
	Archive through July 13, 2007	25		07/13 10:40am
	Archive through July 16, 2007	25		07/16 06:38am
	Archive through July 16, 2007	25		07/16 08:02pm
	Archive through July 18, 2007	25		07/18 02:29pm
	Archive through July 19, 2007	25		07/19 01:19pm
	Archive through February 01, 2013	25		02/01 05:42pm

It's too much penalty in comparison to how things are now, and too much change.

I really think that with this change that the non fighting retreat player can withdraw without combat freely, that the fighting retreat player should have the OPTION to retreat or to stay in the new hex. We're already taking away the abuse of using fighting retreat to run over single units as well as adding the penalty that additional retreat hexes reduce retrograde range (and I like both of these). I just don't think we need more penalties and complications beyond these.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, February 01, 2013 - 07:02 pm: Edit

That's the point, the fighting retreat player (FRP) was given an OPTION and now your saying he should have more. Please don't confuse consequences with a penalty.

Here's a scenario:

A large force just smashed your BTS and is seven hexes from its only retrograde point. It evaluates its retreat paths and hex "X" is the remaining hex but hex "Y" which contains a frigate was excluded under priority 4 of the retreat rules. Both hexes are range 6 from the only retrograde point.

The player chooses the OPTION to fighting retreat knowing there is no real consequence for not doing so. As a matter of fact he gains several advantages for doing so:

A. Even at BIR-0 and the frigate at BIR-10 the FRP destroys the frigate.

B. The FRP gets to retreat AGAIN which now it opens even more retrograde options or allows him to keep his units forward deployed because now the will enjoy the protection of a reserve fleet that the FRP will set up at the newly in-range supply points.

The frigate player is left with two choices under your situation:

1. fight, die and allow the FRP to retreat once again (gaining the benefits from "B" above) or

2. survive (via pass through) and allow the FRP to gain from "B" above.

By allowing the "organized" frigate to withdraw from the hex unopposed the chaotic FRP does not gain any additional benefit by going to X or Y.

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Friday, February 01, 2013 - 07:33 pm: Edit

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that it's still a battle hex.

Previously, the FR player had no option (in most cases) but to retreat after a round of combat.

What you propose is that the rules be CHANGED so that the non FR player has the option to withdraw before combat unopposed.

It seems to make sense to me that if there is no opposition, the FR player can just stay in the hex, we're in agreement there.

But in my opinion, we should not change the rules AGAIN so that in this ONE case the player not withdrawing cannot retreat at his option. IMO, he should be able to.

Realize that the rules handling this have already been published. IMO, if it is decided to change the rules, the minimum necessary should be done.

The ability of the non FR player to withdraw before combat unopposed, and the reduction of retrograde range IMO completely fixes abuse of FR and retreat rules without any other rules changes needed.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, February 01, 2013 - 09:43 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

...what I'm trying to say is that it's still a battle hex.

---

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, February 01, 2013 - 09:57 pm: Edit

OK, what you have here addresses the issue of 'continuesous retreat' inregards to the retrograde (max length of 7 {8 X/F]) from original point of attack...

By Michael Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Saturday, February 02, 2013 - 02:08 am: Edit

Changing the rules may open a bigger can of worms than the problem you are trying to solve.

Just my $0.02

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 02, 2013 - 05:04 am: Edit

We are creating a withdrawal option EXCEPTION to the SoP step 5-1C as a result of a fighting retreat ONLY. It only becomes a "battle hex" if the receiving player wants it to be a battle hex, otherwise either the FRP or the receiving player must withdraw at the discretion of the receiving player.

The bottom line here is that the FRP should gain NO ADDITIONAL BENEFIT from exercising his fighting retreat OPTION. The proposal intent is the strip the FRP forces of any additional initiative gained as a result of conducting a FR.

I'm also not allowing anyone to claim "it MAY open a can of worms" or "it MAY cause a problem" arguments to dissuade us from resolving the issue. You got to clearly tell us how or why the proposed solution will be a problem of how it doesn't resolve the issue at hand.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Saturday, February 02, 2013 - 06:57 am: Edit

Chuck, there are seveal places on the map where you can have a "daisy chain" of battle hexes. Usually it will only be two hexes, but in theory could be longer given homemade scenarios.
Here are some exmaples:
A defender reacts off of a starbase creating a pinning battle in an open space hex. This pinning battle is fought first for whatever reason by the attacker, after 1 round both sides elect to retreat. The defender "retreats" forward to a battlestation or planet that is also a battle hex, but is currently unresolved. The defender obviously wants to reinforce his base this way, The attacker also wants to retreat into this battle hex as a way of increasing his odds of winning the hex.

As to the more serious issue and exmple of a daisy chain of retreats. Look at Cold Winters Day. The ISC create battle hexes in 4904 (Gorn base), 5004 (Gorn Minor Planet) and 5105 (Gorn base). The ISC choose to resolve 4004 first then retreat to 5004 to increase their ability to win that battle. For whatever reason they don't take the hex, then retreat to 5105.
The Gorns who are defending in this example retreat "forward" to reinforce the planet and border bats as the ISC retreat toward their space.

The seond is one of several possible "daisy chain" retreats that could occur over muliple hexes.

The "forward" retreat is what I believe is causing some of the issues with the fighting retreat.

The current rule regarding retreat is that you must retreat towards supply. In both of the above exmaples. Both sides are "retreating" towards supply. Just in the above cases the defender is retreating towards a planet or base that is also under attack, while the attacker is retreating towards his base or planet from which he initially launched the attack.

Even if the attacker has "parity" in the hexes he wants to retreat into given the above the defender's actions may create the fighting retreat situation because the are currently allowed to "retreat" forward.

NOTE: "Retreat" forward is defined in this post as moving towards your enemy's space and away from your capital while still moving closer or to a valid supply point.

By Paul Edwards (Pablomatic) on Saturday, February 02, 2013 - 09:36 am: Edit

Chuck,

For what it's worth I like your rule and think it will solve the bigger issues for me. In fact we have been playing that after the one round of FR battle at 0 &10 BIR, if non FR player retreats after the round or is entirely eliminated leaving the hex empty of non FR forces, the FR had to stop there in that hex and not daisy chain halfway around the map killing frigates only to end up on the enemy's undefended capital.

Your rule is similar but superior to what we have been doing.

I do have one request. I feel that fighting retreats should not be allowed to take the FR *farther* from friendly supply. The practice of fighting retreating forward doesn't follow the spirit of what the FR is supposed to be. When you retreat you don't head towards the enemy capital but are trying to save your skins by getting home.

By Michael Calhoon (Mcalhoon2) on Saturday, February 02, 2013 - 12:48 pm: Edit

Fighting retreat does not allow one to go forward by itself. If priority 3d is still in effect; one must retreat to the hex closest to the supply source (possible exception for partial supply grids) unless priority two eliminates said hex. Retreat priority four is the only one overridden by fighting retreat.

As long as the definition of this exception to the normal battle hex creation rules is stated I will withdraw my concerns as Chuck's proposed solution is superior to the current situation.

Thanks

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, February 02, 2013 - 01:17 pm: Edit

MC: The withdrawal language will be an exception that ONLY applies to fighting retreat situations.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Sunday, February 03, 2013 - 12:10 pm: Edit

PAUL HOWARD: We are working the issue in this topic.

By Michael Parker (Protagoras) on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 09:51 am: Edit

Chuck,

First off I really like this idea
Perhaps I need to think about this more as perhaps I am missing something. But it seems you could drop the retrograde range reduction pretty safely.

If you allow the receiver of the FR to choose to evacuate the hex thereby stopping the chain the retreater might abuse do you really need the idea of reducing the number of hexes the retreater can retrograde?

I am not angling to give the fighting retreater any freebies, but just to make the process simpler.

While it might sound simple, ALOT can occur in an F&E turn between the resolution of a fighting retreat and the start of retrograde. Currently its pretty easy as retrograde is all the same length, but with the FR exception it no longer becomes as simple as knowing if a stack is eligible but also if it has any reduction in its length.

But I really think with you giving the option to vacate the hex, one can stymie most every attempt to get more options to retrograde to by use of fighting retreat. I realize there will still be the possibility of abuse since upon occasion someone might not wish to evacuate a hex to stop the FR chain, but these should I think be very rare.

In short I think your fix without the reduction of retrograde range will eliminate most fighting retreat as it is currently done. It truly will I believe result in FR almost always being "I choose to FR because I really need to be in a different hex than the one normal retreat allows". Adding a portion about reducing retrograde length is a bit too much complezity for what it would buy. I say this as a guy that plays exclusively online, so I have an easy tool to put notes so this will never bother me, I say this for folks that play over the map.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, February 04, 2013 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Thanks Chuck!

I was about to agree - in that removing the retrograde range is probably easy - but if your fighting retreat over an enemy base - they can't retreat - and so you would benefit from 'extra' retreat+retrograde range.

I therefore think your solution is both good and more or less KISS!

Normal retreats might be able to retreat seveal hexes - and retrograde the full 6 hexes - it's much harder to organise - so the difference between FR and normal retreats seems reasonable.

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Saturday, December 31, 2022 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Did any version of these proposals ever get finalized?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, December 31, 2022 - 03:27 pm: Edit

Holy necro Batman!

No, I don't think so.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, December 31, 2022 - 04:50 pm: Edit

Would be interesting to know what SVC and Chuck are thinking of doing on this.


Thanks!

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, December 31, 2022 - 05:30 pm: Edit

Considering the nine year gap, probably not much.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, December 31, 2022 - 07:18 pm: Edit

My proposal still remains unless ADB thinks otherwise and am open to addressing any holes found within it.

By Mike Erickson (Mike_Erickson) on Sunday, January 01, 2023 - 12:19 am: Edit

I like this idea. I'd be interested in seeing proposed edits to F&E2010 rules text so as to consider it in more detail.

--Mike

By John M. Williams (Jay) on Monday, January 02, 2023 - 11:27 am: Edit

I definitely like the idea. I agree with SVC that a fleet in FR mode should be looking to "get the heck out of Dodge," not looking for a backdoor way to go on the offensive.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 02, 2023 - 11:58 am: Edit

I have slept once or twice since this was discussed eight years ago. I will try to look at it sometime but there are other (non-F&E) priorities this week. F&E has had four times its share of SVC time for the last two years and if I ever get F&E time again CIVIL WARS is in line first.

If you want to express lane it, have Chuck or Ryan email me a report with (a) what's wrong, (b) proposed fix, (c) what the proposed fix does. He can post the same report here for transparency. If he didn't mention something, someone will.