Two fighting retreats in a six/seven hex journey towards supply would reflect the level of consumables like drones and antimatter on a fleet.
One FR per province feels nice and neat but I don't have a map to hand and one could pass through three provinces easily.

By Philippe le bas (Phil) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 02:53 pm: Edit

The more I read this topic, the less I see the need to modify the fighting retreat rules.

Nobody force the defender to spread his frigates in many hexes in a way that may trigger a chain of FR. (If it happens in a scenario setup, just change the setup).
Retreat rules are complicated enough, they don't need more rules.

By Dave Butler (Dcbutler) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 03:04 pm: Edit

Matthew,
It seems you've forgotten a fourth option, which also applies to the FR case: you could react the FF away. (Clearly you can't FR onto the FF unless it was adjacent to a battle hex in the first place, hence it would have been possible to have reacted it to the battle during OpMove.)

Okay, yes, one could engineer a series of retreats that walked a series of impromptu battle hexes back to the FF; 99% of the time, however, that would require the collusion of the other player, and I've no sympathy there.

As for running battles, that's a huge can of worms: why shouldn't I be able to "run forward" as the attacker? It'd stop all these ridiculous pinning battles, where 100+ ships step up and all but six refuse combat.

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 03:06 pm: Edit

Tim- It got lost in the clutter about 100 posts back, but the propsal for setting a retreat path allowed the FR force declare any supply point (including allied) as its destination. Therefore the Hydran slime gambit would still be enforce accross southern Klingon space.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 03:40 pm: Edit

Understood Scott, I did miss that so the expedition should not be affected, however there are other elements that the supply path idea will affect...
Here are my 2 MUST haves for Fighting Retreat...
1. It must remain a FIGHTING retreat (I think we are both in agreemennt on that)
2. The Voluntary nature of the Fighting Retreat must be preserved.. and by voluntary, I mean every step of the way...
each hex should have a new option to retreat or fighting retreat....
if I understand your proposal correctly, if I FR, I have to follow a specific path and if there are enemy units in that path oh well, I have to fight them...

another situation that your suggestion nullifies is a deep raid...
say I have decided to send a squadron of ships with gaggle of APT's to keep them in supply for another turn... now I am behind enemy lines and cut from my supply grid, I don't want to retreat towards my grid, that is not my objective, my objective is those juicy undefended Colonies to the south... your suggestion would prevent me from trying to break through the Klingon police ship screen and be in position to attack my targets because I would have to follow one of my supply routs that leads me in the oppisite direction....

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 03:46 pm: Edit

Tim, just checking, but don't the current FR rules cover both of your must haves?

And on the deep raid, you would be just fine in your example. If you attack a ship, you can normally retreat to any of the six adjacent hexes that meet the retreat criteria. Nothing should change there. The only way you could get stuck was if you wanted to FR over the POLs, and I think it's that kind of nonsense that we're trying to fix, right?

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 03:52 pm: Edit

Yes the current rules do, so I am opposed to any fixes that take this away in the name of "fixing"

lets make sure then when we try to fix FR we use the correct definition...

mend; repair

NOT

castrate or spay (an animal); neuter.

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 03:59 pm: Edit

OK, just making sure. I thought maybe I was forgetting something

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 07:11 pm: Edit

Tim- I agree with you on item 1. As far as item 2, I don't agree with you. Here's why...
At the start, FR should always be voluntary as it is now. But once in the FR mode always in the FR mode. Other wise, you just open up a whole new series of cheesy tactics combining FR with normal retreat several times in one turn.
However, you are correct.
The Humane Society does seem to be out in force against FR.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 07:24 pm: Edit

I think that we can close the loophole on the cheesey FR's without killing the voluntary nature of it... anything that requires me to fight multiple FR's along a known path allows the attacker to stack that path with a couple of strong battle lines and maul the retreating fleet.. that's just exchanging chedder for provolone...

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 07:50 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."

Scott, I was on staff when the rule was written, I know it's intent. I helped in its writing. It is not "looking for a fight" but looknig to make its way to supply, and willing to fight it's way to supply. That's it. It's not intended to get into an unnecessary fight.

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Path would be declared at time of retreat, so how would the bad guys know in advance since the proposal is to allow any supply point to be the destination. Also, I agree...FR should always be started voluntarily, like now. But also like now, once a FR force always a FR force. Otherwise you are opening a ripe package of limburger.... a battle takes place. The retreating force uses FR to enter another pending battle hex. Now that the FR has sufficiently reinforced the second battle hex, they decide they are no longer a FR force and the defenders get hammered. That is what will happen if you allow a fleet to decided each battle hex if they are going to use FR or not. That is why the current rule of once a FR force, always a FR exists.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 08:18 pm: Edit

I think you misunderstand my push here..

lets look at an example..

Force A decides they have had enough of this battle and decides to retreat... following they retreat priorities they have (up to step4) 2 hexes to choose and one of those is another BattleHex, they want to combine forces so do a fighting retreat into that hex..
now this is a fighting retreat so they do have to retreat from this hex.. now they look at the retreat priorities all over and suprisingly there are 2 hexes to choose from at Step 4, one with enemy units and one without...
Under the current rules, Force A can choose the hex without units, conducting a normal retreat and ending the combat phase for them... however (and correct me if I am wrong) but if the hex with the enemy units was in that supply path, the force would not be given a choice and have to perform another fighting retreat (and possibly another and another)...

this is what I wish to avoid...

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 08:28 pm: Edit

Joe- Willing...Looking... just adjectives describing the the same thing. Necessity is in the eye of the beholder....

---

Quote:

Scott, I was on staff when the rule was written, I know it's intent. I helped in its writing. It is not "looking for a fight" but looknig to make its way to supply, and willing to fight it's way to supply. That's it. It's not intended to get into an unnecessary fight.

---

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 08:36 pm: Edit

Tim- How I understand the rule is how you explaned it. After a FR is declared, it is a FR until the RF enters a hex without enemy units. I understand what your saying, but I think it opens it up for even more abuse then what there currently is.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 09:03 pm: Edit

now one thing I am not clear on is that this adjustment for FR ONLY works if the fleet is out of supply, it does not affect a fleet that is in supply but has multiple retreat hex choices...
does yor version remove FR for ships that have supply and want to choose to fight over units?

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 09:30 pm: Edit

Tim- Correct... it was never stated, but a FR that is in supply but just using the option to disregard step 4 already has it's path chosen for it based on step 3. So no, ships using FR that are in supply would still get to use FR using the current retreat priorities. The main issue (for me) is when a retreating force is out of supply, FR along with 302.733 sub A allows them to go in any direction to include multiple different directions in the same turn of retreats. I call it the pinball effect... of course it is much better know by the Laform Death Spiral I believe.

By Tim Losberg (Krager) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 09:38 pm: Edit

what about my deep strike example.. how does that get handled by your option or does it get screwed?

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 10:08 pm: Edit

It doesn't get nixed... just clipped a little bit. Since you are having to chose a point you are retreating toward, there may not be a supply point in the direction you want to go. However, there is still plenty of wiggle room. For example- Lets say the Hydrans are being a real pain in the Lyrans fur and are running amuk in northern Enemy's Blood Duchy and around the Capital. Due to Hydran, Kzinti and Fed supply points, they would be able to conduct a fighting retreat in direction A through D (A being North), but not E and F. Now they still would be able to conduct a normal retreat in all directions, but they would be sujbect to Step 4 of the retreat priorities. So yes they are restricted to a small degree, but not to where the tactic has lost value.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 10:52 pm: Edit

"Well staffer, since normal retreat allows you fight to get back into supply.... step 3 comes before step 4...and fighting retreat allows you to skip step 4, i.e. you are not forced to take the path of least resistance, how else could FR be described then except a retreating force looking for a fight.
"

The point was to keep being being forced to retreat into a partial grid, where you could be further isolated.

As to blame, sure, I'll take my share. We didn't think it could be abused so badly, because we thought the penalties were enough to dissuade someone from abusing it so. Apparently, we were wrong.

By Joe Stevenson (Alligator) on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - 10:56 pm: Edit

" Willing...Looking... just adjectives describing the the same thing."

Not to me. It's a matter of degree. Our language has many subtle levels and layers that should not be ignored.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 08:14 am: Edit

I was going to post a long entry about the main reasons Fighting Retreat was introduced - but I think people know the reasons (I'll post it if someone requests it!).

Personally, I think the problem is the reactions the defender does, now have a significant effect on what the Attacker can do - and it allows the Attacker to do stuff, which previously, the defender could always react (or reserve) to.

Reacting a single Ship (or equivalent) into a hex allows an enemy force of 101 ships to treat it the same as as a hex with 100 enemy ships in.

Which just doesn't seem right.

(If you leave a ship in supply blocking position - it 'deserves' to get attacked if it's the closest supply line hex!).

So how about this then -

If a force Fighting Retreats from a Hex -

1) it ALL must do so to the same hex (stops an Allied contingent retreating to another hex) and must stay as one group until the retreat ends (i.e. enters a hex where no battle occurs)
2) The original Race retreating priorities is always used (no change of Flagship for retreat purposes)
3) It may not choose to Fighting Retreat again, during the current retreat.

Fighting Retreats still have teeth - but I think it would remove the 'cheese' factor.

Note - this still allows you to retreat onto a ship (if it's the closest supply hex), but would force you to move to an equal distance in supply hex if that hex was empty.

The famed death spiral wouldn't occur, attempts to cut enemy fleets of may succeed or fail 'as normal' and 'Fighting Retreats' are not the ultimate fighting weapon!

By Robert Padilla (Zargan) on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 09:36 am: Edit

"How I understand the rule is how you explaned it. After a FR is declared, it is a FR until the RF enters a hex without enemy units. I understand what your saying, but I think it opens it up for even more abuse then what there currently is."

I don't think that's true all the time. If you perform a FR from hex A to hex B, you then have to retreat again. The next two hexes are C and D and both have the same supply length. However C and D have enemy units in them. Neither would be a fighting retreat.

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 01:06 pm: Edit

Robert- I believe you are correct.

By Scott Hofner (Sshofner) on Thursday, July 19, 2007 - 01:19 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Not to me. It's a matter of degree. Our language has many subtle levels and layers that should not be ignored.

---