Matt- The point of "re-estblishing supply" is to fix the Fighting Retreat abuse. The proposal is if the retreating force wants to use the Fighting Retreat option, they would have to declare a supply point they are retreating toward and no matter how many valid fighting retreat hexes they go through, they have to move the shortest distance toward that declared supply point. This prevents a fleet that is severly cut-off from pinballing back and forth over frigates.

By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 02:17 pm: Edit

Scott - I see your point when step 3 is skipped due to being completely out of supply.

But what about the cases where it's currently used (abused) to whack the lone FF which wasn't even blocking supply in the first place? (I attack a border BATS with just enough to pin the reserve fleet there, but after the approach battle, I go whack a FF in an adjacent hex on my way home.)

Is there a way both can be fixed?

I do like Lawrence's proposal, but I'd actually like to see that expanded to allow a force to retreat to it's main supply grid, even if currently supplied by a partial grid.

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 02:34 pm: Edit

I personally think thats a slippery slope... If you start making exceptions on how this ship or that ship can evade combat then it's only a short fall until all combat (minus fixed defenses) can be avoided.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 02:55 pm: Edit

"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? "

Matt summed up my repsonse pretty well. In the case of the FF blocking supply, normal retreat rules allow the retreating force to stomp said FF.

In the case of FR, we are talking about stomping a unit that is not by itself, blocking retreat (killing it doesn't open up supply, or it wouldn't be FR). The retreating force truly does not have the luxury of running around looking for a fight; his circumstance is more desperate.

I appreciate what you are saying about a "slippery slope"; we should always keep that in mind. I think in this instance, we are already dealing with a number of exceptions to this complex issue. I think that due to the nature of this type of retreat, the exception is warranted, and presents a set of conditions different enough to defeat any attempt to drive us further down that road.

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 03:18 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I appreciate what you are saying about a "slippery slope"; we should always keep that in mind. I think in this instance, we are already dealing with a number of exceptions to this complex issue. I think that due to the nature of this type of retreat, the exception is warranted, and presents a set of conditions different enough to defeat any attempt to drive us further down that road.

---

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 04:34 pm: Edit

May I summarize how I read the thread to this point?
That the declared ending hex to reestablish supply and taking the most direct route there appears to meet with general agreement.
Leaving us with two points to debate:
a)
Matts' suggestion of fighting through to the main supply grid, even if currently supplied by a partial grid.
b)
Can that pesky frigate run away which i feel requires a look at the reasoning behind the how BIR0-BIR10 rule in the current incarnation of the fighting retreat rules.

I do not like a) feeling that supply is supply and your average squaddie will head for the nearest cup of tea.
There are transwarp* sensors so that lone frigate could receive a battle report or a "radar" immage warning it of the impending fleet so I'd like to see it get away. Picking on a few freighters to block supply is one thing but a mob of very annoyed warships is another. "Discretion is the better part of valour and cowardice the better part of discretion" - Zaphod Bebblebrox.

*faster than warp not as in the transwarp drive

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Again, I say reasoning that the frigate would be able to see what’s coming and thereby flee in advance is opening Pandora’s Box. From there, it is easy to ask why you would be forced to fight any battle hex without fixed defenses.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Scott,

Well, as I say there is a difference between a force in supply, prepared for sustained combat, and one that is not.

By Douglas E. Lampert (Dlampert) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 05:40 pm: Edit

What's the abuse we are trying to fix here? It's the use of a rule intended to allow reasonable retreats forbidden by the normal rules to enable extra cheezy kills.

Solution. The retreating force doesn't fight one round at BIR 10 to BIR 0, it's fight one round at BIR 10 to NOTHING. The retreating player doesn't roll and inflicts no losses.

Done. No cheeze, bounce back and forth all you want. Run over every BATS on the map. Whatever. If the intent of the rule is not to let the retreating force inflict losses but to give it some limited ability to retreat past weak enemies and the problem is that the retreating force IS being used offensively to inflict losses, then the fix would seem to be to simply not inflict losses but leave the retreat past weak enemies intact.

By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 05:47 pm: Edit

I could live with that.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 05:48 pm: Edit

"Solution. The retreating force doesn't fight one round at BIR 10 to BIR 0, it's fight one round at BIR 10 to NOTHING. The retreating player doesn't roll and inflicts no losses. "

Not bad. Same results (basically) as the withdrawal before combat thing, but simpler, and less prone to some otehr unforseen abuse. More mulling over is required, but at first blush, looks OK to me. Nothing that drove my brain through my skull, anyway.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 06:26 pm: Edit

Everyone's input, theory, and proposed wording is welcome. But no one person gets to decide how this new rule will work.

By James Lowry (Rindis) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 06:29 pm: Edit

You could still use it to "redeploy" with an extra-long retreat that deposits you somewhere not achievable with a one-hex retreat. But I'll leave calculating the chances of that being worth the damage to better minds than mine.

By Scott Tenhoff (Scottt) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Just so we are all on the same page here, can some write up, with hex numbers, of exactly the problem please.

I just want it crystal clear, thanks. You realize, that some (most) of us weren't at Origins and probably saw this demonstrated their.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 07:40 pm: Edit

At first glance, I like Douglas Lampert's solution. Gets rid of cheesy retreat kills, and doesn't, at first glance, introduce any new problems. It definitely meets the KISS standard! :-)

Cheers,
Jason

By Daniel G. Knipfer (Dgknipfer) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 08:04 pm: Edit

I don't like the idea of letting a lone picket ship avoid a fight. That should be the penalty for sticking a lone ship out to do what a squad or more should be doing. It lets the race setting up the picket get away with a cheese deployment.

That said; I like the idea of requiring the declaration of a destination hex. Then require the retreating ship to travel the shortest possible retreat path to that hex for each FR hex. One thing I would add is that a retreating unit can not travel farther than its retrograde movement +1. Any ship that reaches its limit in retreat/retrograde movement is automatically destroyed if it is unable to continue to retreat with the rest of the fleet. If the phasing player is conducting the fighting retreat subtract one from its retrograde movement in that turn for each hex it retreats after the first one. Non-phasing players would apply this to CIDS retro. This will prevent players from using FR to pick up extra hexes of movement.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 08:47 pm: Edit

FR History:

Dougs proposal is a method. We would still get the free escape from being OOS for minimal damage. In the old days you could trap a fleet OOS often. After FR rules were introduced the situation happened far less often. Oh sure it still happens but only when the attacker gets way over zealous or is trying to lure the enemy into a trap. The benefit was that players could be more bold in their attacks as they could fight their way back. Reactionary movement also increased with FR but since the attacker gets to choose the order in which to resolve this was only a minor boost to the Defender's capabilities.

I like FR but it really changed the nature of the game and I am not all that sure it has been for the better. That said we CAN fix this. Here is what we've got (did I miss any?):

Idea 1: remove ALL teeth from the retreating force and have them deal no damage as they run to safety. This would prevent the long chain of kills but still provides the long bridge to saftey.

Idea 2: allow FR as normal but retreating force must choose intended paths. Also allow the blocking force the option and chance to evade (essentially stepping aside). There is a success/failure roll for the blocking force.

Idea 3: allow FR but limit it to 3 hexes after which the ships would run out of supplies and be destroyed automatically.

Idea 4: Remove FR and not allow it (essentailly back to the old method).

Idea 5: allow FR but limit retreating force to retrograde limit of a healthy (in supply) unit after which the ships would run out of supplies and be destroyed automatically.

Idea 6: something else...?

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 09:03 pm: Edit

Ya missed one idea. It is essentially #5 and part of #2-
FR force must declare a target supply point for the FR. Regardless of the number of FR battle hexes, FR force must take the shortest distance to this point. Anything that gets in the way does not get a chance to get out of the way. If the FR force goes more then it’s normal retrograde movement +1. If this distance is exceeded, unit is destroyed.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Thursday, July 12, 2007 - 10:58 pm: Edit

Lar,

great summary. My own take (for whatever they are worth) on the ideas you've summarized:

Idea 1 - I'm good with this one. Does what was intended (allows force to retreat back towards supply), but at a cost; no incentive for cheesy moves

Idea 2 - Basically OK. However, these include 2 different ideas, that may not be intended together (Scott H prefers the first part, but not the second, for instance, and I'm sure there are others that feel as he)

Idea 3 - Too arbitrary, and leaves the possibility of other abuses by the forces doing the cutting out of supply

Idea 4 - Reintroduces original (and worse) problem. I don't like it

Idea 5 - Decent, achieves the goal, not cheesy, and big penalty for someone who lets themselves get cut THAT far from supply..... although there could be bad rammaication for someone holding onto a SB far behind the lines.

By Michael Lui (Michaellui) on Friday, July 13, 2007 - 06:39 am: Edit

1 or 5 would be my choices.

By Bill Stec (Billstec2) on Friday, July 13, 2007 - 08:06 am: Edit

I like Lar's idea 1 best, 2 as a second choice.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Friday, July 13, 2007 - 08:10 am: Edit

I think Idea 1 is the best (well done Douglas) - primarily because it's the simplest.

No - what's the closest/how many hexes was FR/how much retreat movement has been used etc.

The effect will be -

It's worthwile again to use 'Patrol' forces at BATS and Minor planets (i.e currently - you assist the base and then run...only to find a massive force from another battle fighting retreating onto you).

Supply lines can be intercepted - with care (i.e. if you block the shortest route, it's a normal retreat).

It's possible to get out of 'dodge city' if the worst happens - but you will take some damage on the way.

......but saying that, just though up another idea -

what would happen if a fighting retreat used the current rules - but the 'defender' adds damage equal to it's Offensive compot to it's damage rating AND can direct damage ANY force in the retreating group at 2 to 1 - or any ship in the battle line at 1 to 1.

The Frigate will still die - but it should cripple or kill a hull from the retreating force.

Not quite so KISS - but still better than allowing the FR to kill at will, or the defender gets away scot free!

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Friday, July 13, 2007 - 09:02 am: Edit

I'm not in favor of idea 1 because it removes the risk to the frigate.... picket duty is inherently dangerous.

By Jim Cummins (Jimcummins) on Friday, July 13, 2007 - 09:49 am: Edit

How about instead of the FF rolling to avoid combat, the retreating forces rolls 1-2 to see if it catches and can engage the FF in combat. Otherwise the FF harasses the retreating forces as they move through its picket area. Option 1.

This allows the picket to do it job, and patrol the area and harass the enemy without being stupid and putting itself directly in the path of a superior force, but if it's not careful it gets caught and squashed.

A base could use its fighters/pf's/pol to the same job as the FF, but the base itself would not be engaged by the retreating forces. Hexes are big and the retreating force is not looking for a fight.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, July 13, 2007 - 10:40 am: Edit

Picket duty is dangerous yes but just because a ship commander has a ship(or ships) on picket duty does not make them fools.

If a force wanted to eliminate the picket they can attack them during OpMove. During combat the force retreating is not hunting picket ships they are retreating.

The Picket duty is to be the eyes and ears on the front line engaging only when it makes sense to do so. In the case where an overwhelming force is retreating through their location they themselves would evade and report the location that overwhelming force was last seen, their speed, and direction. If they are dead there is no report, no information, and thus hinder the plan for counter attack.

There really should be a choice by the defending player to try and evade contact and with that choice some chance that the picket ship fails to evade contact and is engaged by the retreating enemy.