Paul just pulled this off on my twice in a single turn. A big force does an FR into a small battle. This is frequently advantageous for the big force, even ignoring any subsequent retreats.

But here comes the killer. This FR is followed by a non-fighting retreat into another battle.

I want to renew my proposal "avoiding battle with the fighting retreat". It's in the "designer found merit" folder and has been sitting there forever. I still like it, but I also think it's not enough. I want to propose that in addition, if a force does a fighting retreat, any subsequent retreats it does into battles are also fighting retreats. So no FR into small battle followed by a normal retreat onto your SB which we then kill. Kudos to Paul for pulling this off because the current rules allow it.

The fundamental issue is that FR should be a means of escape, not an offensive weapon.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, February 23, 2020 - 03:34 pm: Edit

I disagree with your final sentence. It is a tool to allow you to not be forced away by inferior forces and has a built in penalty for being executed.

Generally, if the opposing force is too small to provide an effective penalty battle round, then it's too small to stop retreat into its hex.

If a subsequent retreat hex is supplied, then it shouldn't be a fighting retreat, ever.

So I do not see a real need for this change and am opposed to it on the principle that I am opposed to random changes to the existing F&E rules until such date as a new version of F&E is published (F&E 2030!).

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Sunday, February 23, 2020 - 09:55 pm: Edit

I agree, if the retreating force is larger than the defending force, it's not a fighting retreat …

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, February 25, 2020 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Well, the rules make Fighting Retreat an option - but it's still a less than ideal retreat.

There was a proposed rule (or 1st April official rule???) that if a Force retreated 3 times, it would auto die. But it never made it in 2010.

So why not re-introduce this (and if it was a joke, less harsh).

Example
A FR counts as '2' points of retreat and a normal retreat counts as '1' point of retreat.

If a force accumulates 4 points of retreats, the force has burned through all their supplies and has compot value zero for the rest of the turn AND can't retro.

Stops the occasional '17 hexes of retreat over single ships' (2 or 3 is more likely, but the retreat chain occasionally crops up) and a real penalty for doing a Fighting Retreat?

The alternative, is to say once part of a force has started a retreat, it must continue to use that Empire for retreat purposes - so if you start with a Fed retreat priority.... you can't switch to a Kzinti or Gorn retreat priority.

Will not always stop the manoeuvre I pulled off against William, but will make it less powerful or desirable, depending on any revised retreat rules.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Friday, February 28, 2020 - 12:15 am: Edit

Fighting retreat is a sticky wicket. Early on people misunderstood how it worked or at least the retreat priorities and how FR happened after priority 4, but the rule has been discussed in CLog and the example cleaned up quite a bit of confusion. Supply is important.

And while I do not like FR mainly because of what it does to the Klingon set up requirements when the hydrans enter the war. It has made the expedition a lot easier.

The extended chain of retreats are harder to pull off; the yo-yo strategy has been nerfed.