Archive through December 31, 2012
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT:
F&E Proposals Forum:
0-FOLDER: The Designer Found Merit:
Avoiding battle with the fighting retreat:
Archive through December 31, 2012
Proposal:
If the enemy does a fighting retreat onto one of your forces, the force that is retreated onto has the option of avoiding battle altogether. In this case, there is no combat, and the retreating force immediately retreats again.
Comment: I am proposing this because it makes sense. However I am also concerned that ships in F&E don't die often enough. My proposal would make that problem worse. Therefore it should be combined with something that helps kill ships.
What I like about the idea is that it's a potential fix to the abuse of using fighting retreat to kill picket ships. I vote yes.
...or the player that was retreated-upon can choose to withdraw his forces...
IOW these options:
A. Stay and fight the retreating forces (using current fighting retreat rules).
B. Withdraw all forces (regardless of 'defending' player status) and yield the hex to the retreating player.
C. Stay and force the retreating force to retreat yet again.
I like it. I proposed something similar in a different thread a while back.
Chuck, whatever works. My primary gripe (and the fix I'm looking for) is ending the "abuse" that fighting retreat has turned into.
Query 1: What is the difference between options A and C? Current fighting retreat rules already require the "defending" player to retreat again.
Query 2: Does "yielding the hex" mean that the "defender" (the fighting retreat fleet) gets to stay and does not retreat again? I'm assuming the answer is "yes" for the rest below.
Yielding the hex to the retreating player is tactically interesting - and changes fighting retreat substantially. Further analysis is needed (probably pushing counters around), but you could end up in a situation where you have another abuse: "conquering" territory by "fighting retreating" onto a small number of ships that have to retreat or be destroyed. Additionally, yielding the hex could cause some fleets of the "attacking" player to go out of supply.
Naturally, the "attacker" has the option to stay and lose ships to force the "defending" player to retreat again - but I'm not sure that the "retreating" player should be rewarded for leaving some other battle. The point, at least in my mind, is that the fleet conducting a fighting retreat is leaving and should not benefit the overall strategic situation, other than avoiding a "trap," (the stated intention of the fighting retreat rule).
The way I see it, there should be two options for the "attacking" player faced with a "defender" who is conducting a fighting retreat:
Y) Stay and Fight. Use the current fighting retreat rules. Thus, the "defending" fleet automatically retreats again after one combat round.
Z) Refuse and Retreat. Both the "defending" player and the "attacking" player must retreat. The "attacker" *must* retreat *after* the force conducting the fighting retreat conducts its retreat (since the "attacker" is, after all, trying to get out of the way).
The net result is that *every time* this option is invoked, *neither* the attacker nor the defender will be in control of the hex. The "defender" gets *some* benefit from this result, but (I think) is less likely to accomplish some other "abusive" result - such as conquering territory or cutting "attacking" units from supply.
Kindly provide your thoughts, Chuck.
Let me see if I can explain it better...
Player 'R' is the fighting retreat player
Player 'B' is the blocking force player
Options available to the blocking force player if his hex is entered by a fighting retreat force:
A.) Player 'B' can choose to stay and fight the retreating forces (using current fighting retreat rules).
OR
B.) Player 'B' can choose to withdraw before combat ALL his forces (using the retreat rules); player 'R' is now left with no one to fight and concludes all fighting retreat actions in that hex.
OR
C.) Player 'B' can choose to stay in the hex but give player 'R' forces the choice to either one of the following:
-- 1. stay in the hex and fight player 'B' using the fighting retreat rules; -OR-
-- 2. leave the hex and continue the fighting retreat into the next hex without fighting player 'B' in the current hex (and since there is no combat player 'B' cannot subsequently retreat.)
The difference between options A and C is that in option C player 'B' has opened the door to allow player F to bypass his hex without a fight.
This idea works well but should player B always be allowed to 'escape'?
What I mean is, there is an obvious abuse with this rule as is with regards to setting your move/attack plans up to include a fighting retreat over a province disrupting ship (or small force). This seems well documented. This suggests that the disrupting force would be given a chance of survival by allowing them to evade the retreating force. I do like this as an option for them but does it have to be made with automatic success?
Can there exist some element of chance (read 'die roll') that they get caught? And thus I would also propose that the Roms (or any cloak using power) get a shift of 1 'in their favor' as they could attempt to use cloaked evasion to escape. I addition I might also propose that a force of all Fast/X units get a 1-shift in their favor. And that these shifts not be cumulative.
Merry Christmas to all
Chuck and Larry, (no relation 
)
"B.) Player 'B' can choose to withdraw before combat ALL his forces (using the retreat rules); player 'R' is now left with no one to fight and concludes all fighting retreat actions in that hex. "
"What I mean is, there is an obvious abuse with this rule as is with regards to setting your move/attack plans up to include a fighting retreat over a province disrupting ship (or small force). This seems well documented. This suggests that the disrupting force would be given a chance of survival by allowing them to evade the retreating force. I do like this as an option for them but does it have to be made with automatic success?
"
I have to almost disagree with both of you. Remember that part of the issue is that FR was introduced to stop abuses by the blocking player. So I don't think the withdrawal of player B should stop player R from doing retreating one more hex. He's withdrawing, so it's a battle hex. It's just an unopposed withdrawal (player B is prohibited from opposing because he's got better things to do, like getting back to supply).
For the same reason, I don't believe player R should get "caught" based on a die-roll; when R retreats, they have to go through the priorities again, and priority 2 prevents player R from retrating into a hex with more units. So if player B wants to stop the retreat, he can put more units in the hex he wants to block. If he doesn't, tough; he should have used more forces to block.
So, a double ring of frigates still will not become a stupid herding trick, but the blocking player won't lose his ships, and player R is disinsented from abusing either.
I also don't like the idea og giving player B the option of staying in the hex. If he puts units in the line of fire, he has to deal with the consequences.
So, my suggestion is:
Option 1) Player 'B' can choose to stay and fight the retreating forces (using current fighting retreat rules).
OR
Option 2) Player 'B' can choose to withdraw before combat ALL his forces (using the retreat rules); player 'R' may retreat using the normal retreat rules, still subject to the penalties of fighting retreat.
Maybe I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be...try this edit:
C.) Player 'B' can choose to give player 'R' forces the choice to either one of the following:
-- 1. player 'R' forces can stay in the hex and fight player 'B' using the fighting retreat rules; -OR-
-- 2. player 'R' forces can leave the hex and continue the fighting retreat into the next hex without fighting player 'B' in the current hex (and since there is no combat player 'B' cannot subsequently retreat.)
Quote:I also don't like the idea of giving player B the option of staying in the hex. If he puts units in the line of fire, he has to deal with the consequences.
If player 'F' chooses C1 how is player 'B' not suffering the consequences.
So B stays in the hex at player R's option? Or is it at Player B's option? I believe you mean the former, but before I comment, I want to make sure I'm clear.
To note though, Chuck, in your Option B, you are letting B withdraw, and forcing R to stop. IMO, if B withdraws, it's a battle hex, and R gets to (or has to; we can discuss that) retreat again.
Player 'B' always chooses from options A, B or C.
If player B chooses option C then player F has the choice of either C1 or C2.
If C1 is chosen by player F then use the FR rules normally;
If C2 is chosen by player F then player F leaves the hex immediately via the FR rules without any combat and player B must remain in the hex.
In other words, player B is saying: "your choice player F -- we fight here now or you can walk away without a fight".
I think that's too many choices, Chuck. I also think it leaves the door open for more abuse by player B, which is why the rule was instituted in the first place. It will trash the who purpose of FR.
I prefer to keep it simple.
In my view, if you FR, it's basically like any other battle, with the proviso that the retreating force cannot block withdrawal. It doesn't require a lot of rules. Run the hex as normal. Force B may withdraw (and leave the hex). Whether or not there is any shooting, force R must retreat again, still suffering the FR penalties. Since he has to obey the normal retreat priorties in each hex, force B can still box in Force R with superior numbers, but they can't build a cheesy wall of FFs (or double wall, which is exactly why FR was added, and it totally takes away any ability for Force R to use cheesy tactics itself; it has to move to get away, not towards trouble.
Chuck, giving the amount of choices you have will bring back all the old cheesy tactics FR was added to produce. I implore you not to get hung up on the whole "why do they get to keep retreating" thing. I know you hate it, but the same is true for nomral retreats. It's just part of the game. Let's keep FR consistant with the other rules. Gameplay over aesthetic, my friend. We can't get in a tizzy over something in one condition when it happens all the time in another. If we aren't going to rewrite the entire retreat rules (and we aren't), then IMO, then there is no reason to force FR to stop earlier than normal retreats; we just have to stop abuse.
Another really simply option:
Only allow FR in the direction of a supply point, even if the retreat will not put the force back in supply.
I also don't like "yielding the hex" because it can effectively reward the player conducting the FR by either capturing territory or potentially cutting off enemy units from supply.
My proposal is basically the same as Joe's: The blocking player can either fight the FR battle normally, or the blocking player choose for BOTH the blocking player and the FR player to retreat from the hex before any combat takes place.
I added the proviso that the blocking player retreats first.
"Only allow FR in the direction of a supply point, even if the retreat will not put the force back in supply."
I've playtested that for my games, and it works really well. Again, I can't say my playtesting is extensive (and I use a bunch of other house rules), but the concept seemed to work when I tried it.
Fighting retreat, in practice, should be used to get your fleet closer to home, not to run over frigates and cut off enemy supply and retrograde routes. You're fighting your way to safety, not fighting your way into inconveniencing your opponent.
Further detail - I allowed the fighting retreat to only retreat towards either a supply point if it could reach supply, or towards the working capital, regardless of if it reaches supply. That way, you're can retreat sideways towards a BATS if you're in range, but your not forced towards that BATS when you can't reach it, and you really should be heading home anyway.
"I allowed the fighting retreat to only retreat towards either a supply point if it could reach supply"
That would most likely not be a fighting retreat then.
Yeah, that's a big 'duh' for me. Sorry 'bout that. What I meant was.... uh, I dunno any more. It's late, and my brain is fried. The point is, it worked well to require the fighting retreat to be towards the capital and allowing said retreat even if supply was closer from another direction. At least, for my playtest games it did, but I never pushed the playtest to all the extremes.
Anyway, I gotta sleep. Big day tomorrow. Merry Christmas, all.
I think there is abuse and it has to stop. I'm willing to consider...
1. Fighting retreat must reach a hex with a shorter supply line (even if too long, even if blocked) or (if that isn't possible) one no longer than the current one.
2. The non-retreat ship has the option to refuse battle. Now, here, I want to prevent further abuse. I'm ok with "refuse battle, don't leave the hex, and the FR guys must continue their FR". My theory is that the FR guys are (frakking well supposed to be) desperately trying to get out of town and dont' have time to chase down somebody who doesn't want to fight. A fighting retreat is just that, the ability to get out of trouble, not a free pass to go picking off garrison frigates.
HERE'S WHAT I CAME UP WITH
(302.771) The selected hex must be closer to a source of supply than the original battle hex (or of equal length if no such hex exists), even if the path is blocked by enemy forces or too long. The enemy forces in the selected hex have the option to “refuse battle” in which case the entire “fighting retreat force” makes another fighting retreat to another hex within the rules.
Wouldn't that end up with the FR fleet moving (potentially) several times during their FR?
I don't play F&E, so my ignorance is in how much movement a fleet should get during this half of the turn. But it seems to me that the FR fleet could possibly hop from fight-to-fight, and land itself very far from where it started the retreat.
SVC: Might I suggest amending "closer to a source of supply" to instead read: "closer to the nearest source of supply"
Otherwise it still leaves an opening for some arbitrary movement shenanigans by picking a wildly distant source of supply and retreating to a hex that shortens that distance by one. I'm having visions of an out of supply Klingon over on the Romulan border saying "I'm going to retreat and shorten the distance to my MB over Hydrax..."
I think we already solved this problem with F&E 2K10.
This thread predates the rules update.
Which specific rules solved this issue? I need to confirm this before I delete that item from CL46 and replace it without another proposal.
F&E2K10 (302.771) currently allows players to retreat into any hex.
- There could be a reason for retreating towards a hex still out of supply if he plans on opening a supply line with later battles. If it doesn't work the player takes a major risk with his ships being out of supply for the next turn.
If you want the non-retreating player to be able to ignore I'd go with:
- (302.776) The enemy forces in the selected hex have the option to “refuse battle” in which case the entire “fighting retreat force” makes another fighting retreat to another hex within the rules.