---

Quote:

The way FR is written now, you MUST FR until you get to a hex with no enemies; but note: IT IS VOLUNTARY. The retreating force choses to FR; once he does, he has to live with it.

---

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Monday, July 16, 2007 - 08:23 pm: Edit

Ah Tim.

Thanks for clarifying :-)

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Monday, July 16, 2007 - 08:41 pm: Edit

By Russell J. Manning (Rjmanning) on Monday, July 16, 2007 - 09:02 pm: Edit

Doug,

My apologies. I was reading your disagreement as to say that didn't think there was a problem. Also sorry about not seeing your proposal. I came to the discussion late and was on some heavy pain meds due to a recent surgery. I sort of lost count of who submitted which proposal.

However, I do think the proposal address the problems. The point of an FR is to get a fleet that is placed out of supply back in supply. I don't see it as an excuse to run around an kill a bunch of garrison ships. The proposal allows the player to get ships back in supply by retreating through units that are blocking it. It does allow the FR force to attack the blocking units but it pays a price to do so.

I actually see this proposal as a compliation of the best parts of all the proposals. It also includes your proposal. Part of the reason I don't agree with your proposal on its own, is that it takes out the fighting part of the fighting retreat.

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Monday, July 16, 2007 - 11:55 pm: Edit

Russell- Don't feel bad, my head is clear (well that is a relative obsevation), I have followed the thread from the start and I still can't keep track of who's posted what.

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 12:12 am: Edit

Dale- I like your tweak #2 of all the hex limitations that have been put out in general population. However, I'm not sure any limitation is needed if the "Declared retreat path" is used. Though there is a very slight chance that it could possibly result in a FR going for more then 5-6 hexes.... by having to declare a a retreat path (and follow it) you would be hard pressed to create the required cheesy situation that would result in more then 4 or 5 hexes let alone 6 or 7. Yes it could happen in a theroretical discussion, but what about real game play. Do we really want to add frivolus rules?

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 08:37 am: Edit

Every rule is useful. Often not in the way its author intended hence this thread.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 08:40 am: Edit

Maybe reduce the COMPOT of the retreating force performing a FR? Say the first hex of retreat is at 50% (normal), the second hex at 25%, and the third and subsequent hexes are at 0%. That way at best a retreating force could do damage in a total of two hexes, anything after that and they just don't have the supplies to fight anymore.

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 10:44 am: Edit

Jason M- We are going to have to agree to disagree...
If you are more likely to win the lottery then use a particular rule then it is frivolous...
If you keep adding frivolous rules to a game system, it becomes cumbersome....
Cumbersome game systems have a tendency to scare off new players and drive off existing ones.
So no, I do not think every rule is useful.

By jason murdoch (Jmurdoch) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Scott
Some one found a flaw in the FR rules and used it to their advantage. I suspect that more people on this board have mis-used the FR rule than have posted on this board and won [a large sum on] the lottery
Please read all my posts with a sense of humour nearly everyone else manges too.
One assumes that your use of the term "WE" is as in the royal "We are not amused"

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 02:36 pm: Edit

I did not take any kind of offense to your previous statement. And actually, "we" was meant as typed: as in you and I. Try not to read to deep into what I say...I usually mean exactly what I type.
But you missed my point... The current FR rules are open to wide spread abuse; hence, the discussion. I feel we (no- not me and the mouse in my pocket- the F&E community and ADB as a whole) don't need to add a lot of rules to cover every theoretical possibility, especially those that only exist in theory. KISS....

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Rules Question: Does a fleet that uses Fighting Retreat on the phasing player's turn get to use Retrograde Move afterwards???

If "yes", then I see another cheesy tactic. As it is now, you can move 6, retreat 1, and retrograde 6 for a total move of 13. (There's a term paper on this, in fact.) Using Fighting Retreat, you could move 6, use FR for 2 (or more), then retro for 6 more for a total of 14 (or more).

Purposed fix: Retro Move range is reduced by the number of hexes moved with FR except not counting the first. Ie, if you use FR twice, gaining three hexes, you can only move [ (6-(3-1))=(6-2)=4 ] four hexes during Retro Move.


Garth L. Getgen

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - 11:28 pm: Edit

Garth, rules questions go in the Q&A topic. I know you are still learning the basics of F&E so it is okay that you asked here just FYI for in the future. Nick does a great job and can answer most of your questions (even the basics).
BTW: Retrograde is not the issue with FR it is the two issues posted above that have caused this discussion.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 04:00 am: Edit

Garth - the answer is 'yes' - if the Fighting retreat fleet is either in supply now (or in the original battle hex) it can retrograde 'as normal' - i.e. no deductions for the Fighting Retreat.

Proposals etc - I still think we will come down to two options -

1) Fighting Retreat Force deals no damage
2) Force being FR on to gets a chance to escape. If people don't like 'get out of Dodge City for free' - just make it a roll -

Normal Ship 1-3 - it can withdraw
Cloaked Ship 1-5 - it can withdraw

If the ship fails, or the defender doesn't want to withrdaw, the 10 v 0 battle is done as normal.

FR force then has to retreat again - if in open space or attacking a enemy base - or moves to the base if it's friendly.

KISS?

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 07:53 am: Edit

LAR... why the slap in the face, dude??? You know I've been on this board from the start, and on GEnie before then. Of course I know where the F&E Q&A topic is. I asked -here- because it tied directly into the discussion.

Regarding me "still learing" --- ah, wow. I've had F&E since it first came out ... I bought the second copy off the shelf at The Game Gallery back in '86. At one point, I was going to volunteer to be the Q&A guy, but life/work got in the way and took all my "spare" time. Back then, I -knew- the rules as well as anyone, including Nick and Jeff. I never had anyone local to play against since '89, so yes, I'm learning the basic of F&E -tactics-, and I may be a bit rusty on the rules, not having gotten into them for about four or five years like I used to. But I sure hope I haven't fallen back to knowing less than the basics. Dang.


Garth L. Getgen

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 08:00 am: Edit

Also, Retro wasn't part the discussion because it probable never came up in a game and thus wasn't thought of before. I was just trying to look at the problem from additional angles to see what else might be "broken". I was talking with Will Wood about it, and he asked if a fleet could use Retro after FR. I looked and didn't see anything one way or the other .... and the more I thought about it, the more I saw a potential problem.


Garth L. Getgen

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 09:07 am: Edit

Paul- I think you left several options out.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 10:21 am: Edit

Scott

Yeh - but there all badddd!

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 12:28 pm: Edit

Paul- I know you make a joke, but both of your options don't address the root cause.... FR with no destination in mind. Reducing or eliminating the damage done by a FR force does not fix the problem. The problem is a FR force can bounce back and forth causing mayhem. Eliminate the pinball gambit and 99.9% of the problem is fixed.

BTW, I truly feel I am being generous allotting .1% to the poor wayward frigate the got unlucky enough to be chosen as the ship to be put in the path of a retreating fleet.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 12:34 pm: Edit

"Reducing or eliminating the damage done by a FR force does not fix the problem. "

Sure it does, Scot. If the damage is 0, bouncing around no longer causes mayhem, hence the motivation to do so goes away.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 01:04 pm: Edit

I personally do not feel that the blocking FF (DD or whatever) should be able to get away free. There should be just as much risk involved in spreading FFs around to block supply as there is in getting cut off from supply.

If it's just the damage element of the retreating fleet that is the problem, then I would actually, seriously, suggest reducing the O-COMPOT of the retreating ships for every hex they perform a FR. Normal 50% COMPOT for the first hex, 25% COMPOT for the second hex, and 0% for every other hex. This allows a fair chance for the cut off fleet to escape, and takes care of the problem of said fleet killing a bunch of FFs in a cheesy move. At best this fleet can bag two ships, and that second ship may be hard to get at 25% combat effectiveness. Other than that, just leave FR the way it is right now.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 01:12 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

I personally do not feel that the blocking FF (DD or whatever) should be able to get away free. There should be just as much risk involved in spreading FFs around to block supply as there is in getting cut off from supply.

---

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 01:27 pm: Edit

Joe- If anything a fighting retreat force should be able to cause more damage... per 302.77. 302.77 says the the FR force is looking for a fight. Logic would seem to dictate that a normal RF; then, is not looking for a fight. So why is the FR force punished with the BIR rules and a normal retreating force fights as normal? Am I the only one that thinks this is backwards? Now lets look back to how we got the fighting retreat rules to begin with.... was it because it was such a wide spread, cheesy tactic to have a handful of frigates be able to corral a fleet of 100 ships? Are we now going to completely reverse direction and start a cheese conservation movement to protect these ships?
The answer is not to reduce or eliminate the damage done by a FR force... but simply force it to have a defined retreat path. Could that FR force still retreat over some stuff and cause damage, absolutely. If it couldn't, why would you call it a FIGHTING retreat.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 02:15 pm: Edit

I agree with Scott, this is a fighting retreat and taking the ffight out of it is just a soft kill of a rule that is needed in the game...
However I do not like the idea of having to retreat along a complete supply path... I think that this limits some tactical flexability of fleets can have a negative impact on the game, especially for things like the Hydran Expedition.
The purpose of a Fighting Retreat is to prevent the enemy from using a few ships to block where the fleet wanted to go if the ships were not there...
What seems to be the main focus of the cry for a "fix" is to prevent the abuse of the rule to kill a lot of co-located ships....
there are ways of doing this without forcing the fleet to go all the way back to its supply grid (which may not be wehre they wanted to go at all) or totaly defanging the fleet.
In order to Fight its way out of a trap (as defined by the rules) the fleet should have to specifiy where they wanted to go, and move in such a way (and only in such a way) as to accomplish this...
this can be further enhanced by setting a maximum number of Fighting retreats allowed per fleet... (starting with the first attemtp, additional fleets picked up by the original retreating fleet would be subject the limit of the fleet that picked it up in much the same way that movement of a stack absorbed by a moving stack is limited to the oringal stacks movement)
My first guess would be a 2 hex limit for a fighting retreat (2 FR battles) after the 2nd Battle, the fleet much choose (withing the options for Retreat Priority) a non fighting retreat hex.

By Matthew G. Smith (Mattsmith) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 02:29 pm: Edit

I can understand Scott and Tim's position.

But here's what doesn't make sense to me:

A single FF picket (or just a FF that was capturing NZ hexes) is attacked during normal combat. I have a number of choices (and these choice are all available even if the sole purpose of said attack is to wipe out a single FF.) I can reinforce with reaction movement, I can reserve to the battle with up to 48 ships (and all their fighters) and I can write off the FF.

Now, with a FR, I can only do the third, write off the FF. Get me some way to reinforce said battle, such as expanding the FR rule to have RBs (running battles) and then things start to make sense to me.