-Moved over from the general discussions forum-

We discussed at the F&E seminar the fighting retreat rules.

"9. SQUIRLEY FIGHTING RETREATS: If you don't make it out of Dodge City on the third try, you are destroyed."

I think making an arbitrary finite limit allows the creation of squirrel just like the old retreat rules before this rule was put in place. The purpose of the fighting retreat is for a fleet that would be trapped out of supply to be able to fight its way back. To eliminate the LaForm spiral and the Marquis SB incident that was discussed, the only change that would have to be made would be for the retreating player to declare which supply hex he is going to attempt to fight his way back to at the beginning of the process. He must then take the shortest path possible back to that hex. (The hex is fixed after selection, he cannot alternate between equidistant hexes or anything like that. Squirrel king Scott Hofner saw a vicious tactic possible if the hex could be redeclared).

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 11:00 pm: Edit

All compiments are taken, non turned aside.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 11:16 pm: Edit

I like it! Although the Laform death spiral really was a reult of specific scenario requirements and hard to reproduce.. I like the locked supply path, that to me fits the spirit of the rule.. this is to escape to a supply point and not to exploit the mistakes of your opponent.

By Jeff Laikind (J_Laikind) on Wednesday, July 11, 2007 - 11:53 pm: Edit

One other item that was mentioned recently was the lone FF vs massive retreating fleet.

Should the ships in the hex of the retreat be allowed to wave the retreating ships through without a suicidal fight?

By Philippe le bas (Phil) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 12:42 am: Edit

I am curious: how many time did the situation you want to fix happen ?
And if it happens rarely and only as the result of a planned strategy does it really need a fix, another errata, and possibly another loophole found later ?

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 12:56 am: Edit

Scott B.

Well said.


Jeff,

"Should the ships in the hex of the retreat be allowed to wave the retreating ships through without a suicidal fight? "

Absolutely. Give them the option to withdraw before combat, as though they are the defender (even if they are not)

By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 01:08 am: Edit

I've always found it strange that if the retreating fleet annihilates the ship(s) it drops onto, it's still forced to retreat.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 02:03 am: Edit

Suggestion:

Non-Fighting Retreat ships may withdraw before combat using those procedures (302.1) as though they are the 'defender', but may not withdraw into the hex the fighting retreat ships exited from (prevents abuse).

Units unable to withdraw may automatically retrograde using procedures from (302.742C).

In any case, if no units remain in the fighting retreat hex after withdrawl or the fighting retreat combat round, the fighting retreat ends and no other retreat is possible by either side.

By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 08:38 am: Edit

Just make sure that the withdrawal before combat cannot be opposed by the fighting retreat player.

(A simple reference to 302.1 won't be enough, as that would give the fighting retreat player the option to oppose withdrawal.)

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 09:54 am: Edit

I have a concern about non-mobile units.
A fighting retreat can take the time out to squash a base as it wont have the proposed option to retreat before combat. Now a monitor may accidentally be in the wrong place at the wrong time while patrolling a system and possibly the same may be said for a bases fighters.
So if the system contains only a base should it be immune from combat caused by a fighting retreat? At the best a single round of an approach battle (with no break through option) against the bases fighters; which are replaced free anyway so no great loss to the defender.

One is supposed to be retreating at maximum warp skimming the edges of populated & hostile systems not leisurely ambling back to ones supply lines with the odd side trip to engage targets of [created] opportunity.

By Mike Curtis (Nashvillen) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 09:59 am: Edit

Allow the non-fighting retreat ships that are in the hex to withdraw automatically and not at the permission of the fighting retreat ships.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 10:00 am: Edit

Jason,

Good point. We don't want the Fighting Retreat force to use this as an opportunity to squash a base, either.

By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 10:02 am: Edit

Jason,

It's already there. But it's in the Q&A archive, not the rulebook.

Look at the F&E Q&A archive and then do a "search on this page" for "fighting." (Or just scroll down to the 6/6/2003 11:23 message.)

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 10:58 am: Edit

I don't think the lone frigate (or anything else that's in the path of a fighting retreat) should get any special retreat/retrograde options and here's why:
First of all, history is replete with armies that are conducting fighting retreats and engage the enemy forces on the way.... especially if it is enemy forces blocking their line of retreat. I feel the current BIR penalties does a good job simulating the nature of this though.
Second, war is hell. If you are going to leave a lone frigate (or anything else) by itself in 500 parsecs of space, in the path of superior forces, then you are going to have to understand that bad things may happen to it.
Third, it provides a nice balance to that lone frigate's ability to cut off supply to a large fleet. A single frigate can block up to 1500 parsecs of a supply path. The owner of said frigate is taking a chance leaving it by itself, directly in the path of a retreating fleet.

I like the proposed idea of a declaration of retreat path for ships conducting a fighting retreat. It's realistic..... and if some crunchies left on their own get step on along the way, well thats realistic too.

By David Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 11:09 am: Edit

Well, I would like to think that if a retreat is being conducted where the fleet is in supply neither before nor after the retreat, the fleet should have to retreat towards the nearest supply point in the main grid regardless. The only exception should be when said hex has more enemy ship equivalents in it.

This will eliminate all squirlyness.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 11:50 am: Edit

"the fleet should have to retreat towards the nearest supply point in the main grid regardless. "

Amen.

By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 11:50 am: Edit

---

Quote:

In any case, if no units remain in the fighting retreat hex after withdrawl or the fighting retreat combat round, the fighting retreat ends and no other retreat is possible by either side.

---

By John Robinson (John_R) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 11:58 am: Edit

Let me see if I understand these two dynamics correctly.

A drone frigate deep in enemy terrotory can launch an attack on the capital system with all its defenses with near impunity (and success, though irrelevant to this discussion).

But, a single frigate trying to become a hole in space (no scanners, warp engines off, etc) cannot hide or run away from a supposedly retreating enemy force.

I just can't seem to reconcile the difference in these concepts.

One ship is practically shouting "Here I am!" and the other is playing dead ala The Enemy Below / Balance of Terror, yet the one hiding is the one that will almost certainly die.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Agree with Scott Hofner. I got caught up in the 'doesn't seem right' feeling for a bit, and then realized that a single patroling FF should get caught when a fleeing force decides he's in the way right before reading his post.

However, I think normal withdrawal (which the fighting retreat player can oppose or not) should be allowed.

Would a certain amount of squirreliness be taken out if a fighting retreat stops as soon as it is no longer in a battle hex? (Which would happen if it retreats into a hex with 1xFF and destroys it.)

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 12:00 pm: Edit

I would agree that the option of retreat should be declared. If a fleet is OOS then it would have to declare one of the following:

A) It is conducting a fighting retreat toward his own supply grid.

B) It is conducting a fighting retreat away from his own supply grid but toward an Allied grid.

Once this is declared the retreating fleet (or ship) may retreat only toward their objective and must attempt the (safest up for debate) shortest path to return to the target supply grid. The fleet or ship may not change its objective until after the next (his or another player's) movement and combat phase.

This would cut down on the FR cheese during a player's turn and yet still give them some level of flexibility to deploy and move fleets.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would also support the option of a defender evasion of units that would surely be crushed. If this happens then maybe a die roll like pursuit to see if the blocking unit is caught off guard and engaged. Something like the player owning the blocking ship decides to attempt to evade the in coming force. He rolls a die to see if he successfully evades.

(A fleet trying to retreat for battle is blocked by a single FF. The FF captain is warned that an enemy fleet is fast aproaching and can decide to evade or engage. Most good captains understand that it is better to live to fight another day and thus would elect to attempt to evade. The retreating fleet may see the FF and viewing it as an attempt to block may try to run it over they would not really chase it but the opportunity may be there to catch it off guard and smack it before it gets out of the way.)

On a roll of 5-6 the blocking player fails to evade and must engage the retreating force in combat. A scout ship with the blocking force gets a -1 to the die roll. A Fast ship by itself gets a -2 (thus automatically evades). A Fast ship with a group of normal ships subtracts nothing. Slow units do not roll as they would be engaged automatically. Bases and other stationary things (like planets) would be engaged but at a distance from them as the fleets are not looking to engage them only pass through the hex in an attempt to escape.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 12:03 pm: Edit

Scott H,

I have to agree with John R on this one. We aren't talking about a normal retreat, where it is possible that a retreting force HAS to retreat on top of an enemy due to higher priorities, and is not in a death struggle to get back to a supply point. The FR force is supposed to be hell-bent on getting back to supply. He doesn't have time to force a battle with a frigate or any other force..... however, a battle could be forced onto him by someone in his way that won't get out of the way.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 12:35 pm: Edit

Thread. Moving. Too. Fast.

A ship moving at high-warp (anything over 32c) is vulnerable to anything. Fleeing through an area, you cannot afford the chance that an enemy unit might ambush a flank and knock out a couple of ships as you go tearing by. This type of principle is my understanding of why pinning works.

So, if you are trying to retreat through an area you must deal with that lone FF, in one way or another.

If you're that FF, you probably would just be happy to let them go by. However, you aren't hiding. You've been patrolling your assigned sector of space, forcing the enemy to divert supply shipments around you, and either disrupting the enemy infrastructure, or protecting yours. You're on patrol.

Given the speeds at which operational movement goes (which would be the same speed range as a retreating fleet), by the time someone can get on the horn and tell you that the third battle of Starbase 3 just ended and the enemy decided to retreat through your patrol sector, you're staring at the scanner readings and really wishing you'd taken that offer of a desk job....

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 01:04 pm: Edit

Joe- You are making the assumption that the fleet is making a freakish, hell-bent mad dash. Modern, professional armies and navies do not conduct a fighting retreat in that manner. This a fighting retreat we are talking about not a rout. A fighting retreat by definition is a measured and controlled withdraw from engagement. However, let me surmise what I think you are saying and you can correct me if I have miss-understood you.

You are advocating to allow a fly-speck of a ship to block 1500 parsecs (4890 light years) of supply line for a major fleet in combat. Then when that fleet decides to retreat along it's blocked supply path (to re-establish supply), to allow the ship that is suppose to be blocking the supply path to leave (i.e. no longer blocking supply) and then require the retreating fleet to retreat another 500 parsecs (1630LY) even though it's in supply because the ship that was suppose to be blocking its supply path abandoned its post. Is this correct?

Putting a frigate out to block supply is a common, useful tactic, but it should not be one without risks.

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 01:07 pm: Edit

Excellent points James.

By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 01:41 pm: Edit

If the single blocking FF is the only thing standing in the way of the retreating fleet, and the hex he's in is the only one which supplies the retreating force, then it's not a fighting retreat, it's a normal retreat.

If the single blocking FF is the only thing standing in the way of the retreating fleet, and the hex he's in is the shortest path to a supply point, with all the others being longer, it's not a fighting retreat, it's a normal retreat.

It's only a fighting retreat when the retreating player had a choice to enter a hex that contains enemy units even though he had a valid (post step 3) choice to enter a hex which did not. Since that's the only step of the retreat priorities which are skipped, it's not about getting "back in supply."

It's about preventing an opponent from "corralling" you by contrived placement of single FF's to drive your retreat in the direction he wants you to go.

Since that's the purpose of the rule, I think it's perfectly appropriate to allow the single FF to withdraw unopposed. Of course, since that's the rule, people don't do the contrived placement of single FF's to drive retreats in the desired direction anymore.

So now the rule is used (or abused) to have big fleets whack FFs on their way back from the pinning battle even though there are alternatives which keep the force in supply.

So the argument that the force is just trying to "reestablish supply" doesn't wash. If it was, that would be a normal retreat, normal new battle hex, and the FF doesn't even get the BIR 10 vs. BIR 0 thing.