Thanks - All really good points.

Except thats not what the rules say : -

To reply to Stewart

"(302.134) If some of the defending units retreat, they must be placed on the map in the retreat hex selected by (302.73). If the remainder of the force later retreats, it must go to the same hex
even if the situation has changed during the Combat Step and a new evaluation of the retreat priorities would have required a different hex."

So the first part confirms ships which withdraw/retreat are moved immediately - not at the end.

(And crucially, the retreat hex is defined when those first forces retreat - not at the end, so it re-in forces the first part of the rule on when ships are physically moved.)

Hence the confusion and query.

On Devastated/Undevastated - I would agree the rule 'today' is that it does not matter - but prior to Chucks ruling in 2015, the rules did differentiate between Devastated and Undevastated (as why would the original printed rule refer to devastated planets with just a RDF/RDU)?

I personally feel their should be a value in retreating from a Undevastated planet - hence my appeal (partially supported by it being a rule change and not a clarification???).

On how to handle a withdrawal with cripples, I'll hold my hands up and admit I have no idea how that is handled (and have avoided the issue before hand, but NOT withdrawing anything crippled, prior to the battle and trying ones best to allow the cripples to 'escape' - either by accepting the approach battle or self killing some cripples in the battle to get the persuit into a better shape - i.e. crippled escorts hide in groups etc).

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Wednesday, July 13, 2022 - 03:59 pm: Edit

Stewart's statement would seem to imply that partial retreated units are still vulnerable to pursuit, and moreover that they remain vulnerable to pursuit out of a capital hex even if they retreated prior to the demolition of a base that blocked pursuit as long as the hex was captured during the same Battle Hex (the Capital).

That seems like it can't be right?

One of these things kind of has to be true:

1. Partial retreats occur when stated in the SOP and partially retreated ships cannot be pursued because the attacker isn't eligible to enter pursuit until he actually wins and causes a full retreat from the battle hex;
2. Partial retreats occur when stated in the SOP but the ships don't leave the battle hex and may be pursued normally by the attacker (which would be what Stewart proposes, but would mean that cripples partially retreating even before bases that block pursuit are destroyed could get pursued);
3. Partial retreats trigger pursuit, if there is nothing blocking pursuit, and then you go back and do more combat and potentially pursue again (which would mean no one ever partially retreats).

I think (1.) has to be correct, but as always YMMV.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, July 13, 2022 - 06:13 pm: Edit

I think, lacking a rule explicitly stating otherwise, that pursuit always occurs AFTER one side declares 'normal' retreat (or if that side has all their stuff destroyed). In other words, if I partial retreat on round one from a system with no bases, but combat continues for rounds two through ffifteen and then the force that partial retreated declares normal retreat (or all their stuff is destroyed), then after round fifteen, the other force can declare they are attempting to pursue _any_ retreating force that did not have a blocking base.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, July 14, 2022 - 12:49 am: Edit

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, July 12, 2022 - 04:05 pm: Edit

An undevastated planet does not block pursuit, this has been ruled before.

*****
Where? And if that's the rule, I'd suggest removing the word "devastated" from the text of (302.721) quoted above.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Thursday, July 14, 2022 - 03:25 am: Edit

Paul pointed out that Chuck ruled on this (in a previous post).

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Thursday, July 14, 2022 - 10:07 am: Edit

Original question and Chucks answer :-


By Jason Langdon (Jaspar) on Thursday, March 26, 2015 - 02:18 am: Edit

Question on retreating during combat on a planet and avoiding pursuit.

(302.721) says:

"…Devastated planets without PDUs (even those with RDUs) do not block pursuit."

Question: If a planet is undevastated but has lost all of its PDUs, will it block pursuit?

Thanks.
By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, March 26, 2015 - 02:16 pm: Edit

JL:

What you are describing is an UNdevastated planet with an RDF. Rule (508.162) specifically states that RDFs do not block pursuit. The important point to remember here is that BASES (including PDU/PGBs) left behind block pursuit; planets alone do not block pursuit. So unless overruled by ADB any planetary hex (regardless of the associated planets devastated status therein) without a base (not RDF) cannot block pursuit.

FEDS SENDS


(Chucks answer overlooked 302.721 I feel - and I think Jason originally felt that too??)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Friday, July 15, 2022 - 12:43 pm: Edit

FEDS stands by his ruling:

Unless overruled by ADB any planetary hex (regardless of the associated planets devastated status therein) without a base PGB/PDU (but not RDF) or open space base cannot block pursuit.

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Sunday, July 24, 2022 - 12:27 pm: Edit

Following up:

Chuck, what about the partial retreat issue? If in a round of combat in which no base blocks pursuit, but a fleet of some number of ships still fights on in a capital hex, and a partial retreat occurs which involves one or more crippled ships, or one or more slow units, what happens?

1. [GMC thought] The fleet blocks pursuit as a base would and no pursuit is possible until the last round;
2. [Eitzen/Frazier] The combat continues, but any ships that partial retreated after the last base was destroyed are eligible to be pursued after combat in the hex is complete if the partially retreating side eventually full retreats;
3. [Per Rule 307 - "any retreat"] There is a pursuit for each partial retreat if no base blocks it;
4. [Maybe another interpretation still] The combat continues, but any partial retreats do not execute until after combat and pursuit is possible if combat ends and the capital defender full retreats as to all ships because at the time pursuit occurs there was no blocking base.

[2. and 4.] seem to be contradicted by the SOP and the partial retreat rule which state partial retreats are conducted - and therefore the ships leave the battle hex - before the next combat round.

[1.] seems to have the problem that the capital defender could effectively avoid pursuit by leaving a frigate behind as a sacrifice in the last round and partially retreating everything else.

[3.] has the obvious problem that everyone knows it's wrong and it would break partial retreats in all situations without bases.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Sunday, July 24, 2022 - 11:59 pm: Edit

Graham, partial retreats are for crippled ships only (removing them from the defender static/mobile forces), non-ship/slow units cannot partial retreat. The partials retreats will point to where the final retreat ends up (no pursuit as the battle hex is not revolved).

If the defender retreats, the pursuit battle is with all retreating units (including all the partials that withdrew earlier), there may even be a slow retreat involved. However, if the defenders does not retreat, then there is no pursuit battle either though all the partials do finish their retreat.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, July 25, 2022 - 05:05 pm: Edit

Stewart

I don't believe that is correct - 302.723 doesn't require the ship to be crippled.

I also believe, that any ships that partially retreat can't be pursed - but thats why I asked the formal question.

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Monday, July 25, 2022 - 11:12 pm: Edit

It's nice to believe in things, but can you point to any rule that EXPLICITLY states something supporting your last point above?

By Graham Cridland (Grahamcridland) on Tuesday, July 26, 2022 - 12:51 am: Edit

Stewart, why do you think that units that partial retreat before the end of combat can be pursued after combat is over? [Isn't that the point of partial retreats?] Is there a rule I am missing on this?

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, July 26, 2022 - 03:25 am: Edit

Richard

302.723 doesn't specify only crippled ships can retreat (and it does specify Slow Retreat stuff can't Partially Retreat).

i.e. it says "retreat some of his units"...

It then goes on to say 'it is separate from the more general retreat rules'.

Seems to be explicit - but could be clearer?

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Tuesday, July 26, 2022 - 05:42 pm: Edit

Paul: I don't agree.

By Stewart Frazier (Frazikar3) on Tuesday, July 26, 2022 - 06:52 pm: Edit

Graham, simple answer, the battle hex isn't over. ONce it's done and the final answer to defender retreat or not, any partial retreats are hung in limbo, there isn't anything under partial retreats that excuses them from the 'final' pursuit battle if the defender retreats ... (of course, if the defender doesn't retreat, then those partials become a full retreat but with a full rear-guard at their back) ...

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, September 08, 2022 - 05:04 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

By Stefano Predieri (Preda) on Thursday, September 08, 2022 - 01:11 pm: Edit

Question about federation early activation.
In the new game we started this may, the klingons decided to treacherously attack Kzinti marquis Area during turn 6, substantially killing SB and BATS for free (We saved the planet with reserves) activating the Federation for limited war one turn early.

We don't agree on how to read rule 702.214 on federation early production (Italians here, so maybe it's a translation issue...)
During turn 6 we all agree federation should use first spring early war turn production (Only difference from prewar construction is a CA instead of a FFS, and obviously a ton of money to use for other things).
But than our enemies assume that turn 7 should use first fall early war production (identical to turn 7 production) and than turn 8 production should be used regularly thereafter.
Net cost of the early attack: 1 better ship and 80sh extra money for federation (that from the actual ship deployment I assume will be attacked on turn 10 anyway). Not that much in exchange for a freely killed starbase...

I'm myself not sure on how the rule should be interpreted.
Should the note on the federation being attacked in x turn should be used (the federation hasn't been actually attacked),
- than turn 6 count as turn 8 and than we proceed with turn 7 as 9 for production than full production rates
(net gain for the federation 35 extra ships by turn 10)
-or should it be totally ignored, and turn 6 is first early spring, turn 7 is first early fall and than we should proceed with y173 schedule (net gain for the federation 29 extra ships)?

As it makes a SUBSTANTIAL difference a ruling would be appreciated...

---

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, September 08, 2022 - 05:11 pm: Edit

Stefano wrote:
>>Net cost of the early attack: 1 better ship and 80sh extra money for federation (that from the actual ship deployment I assume will be attacked on turn 10 anyway). Not that much in exchange for a freely killed starbase...>>

In the instance you indicated (Coalition attack Marquis Zone on CT6), the Feds can send a reserve from the 4th SB (which they set up, yeah?), and then on AT6 get 75% of their economy, their T6 construction (CVA, ECL, 2DE, 3NCL, 3FF), I think they get a CA on top of that, some activations, overbuilds they want to make, and accelerate their FF and NCL builds (see 656, Federation Early War) such that on T8, they build 6NCL and 6FF instead of 3, etc. And they get to move ships to more convenient places.

Still seems like a bad move for the Coalition (assuming the Kzinti have a unpinnable reserve off map, the Feds have a reserve on the 4th SB, and the Kzinti have a few ships on the Marquis SB; I generally find that having a not insignificant force on the Marquis SB starting around AT5 is valuable anyway; if there are a dozen ships on the SB, and 2 reserves in range, the SB, if attacked, can certainly be costly to kill).

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, September 08, 2022 - 06:10 pm: Edit

IMO the Marquis SB is a small price to pay for earlier Fed entry, in any form.

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Friday, September 09, 2022 - 05:26 pm: Edit

Stefano, my original reply is incorrect in a couple of respects. The Federation is at limited war not full war. The Federation is able to use all limited war rules to the best of their ability.

By Stefano Predieri (Preda) on Wednesday, September 14, 2022 - 09:02 am: Edit

The situation was weird, the coalition was faking a turn 7 attack aganist federation. We had destroyed the 2 northernmost klingon bats in east fleet deployment area on turn 4 (activating east fleet that moved toward tholian area in turn 5) they also moved an frd on northern reserve SB and an LTT in the corner of klingon territory 3 exes away. We expected them to move forward the frd and send the repairs there on turn 6 to attack 4th federation SB in turn 7. To hinder that, half the kzinti fleet stayed forward deployed in the hex next to the LTT to mess with their attack preparation. So on the Marquis SB there were only the 7 ships required by the rules. Instead of kicking back our ships, they pinned them and attacked the marquis SB with 90ish ships. They also attacked all the other targets in marquis area and 1502, that still has all 4 his pdu, with just enough to win without reserves, so, to keep our fleet in supply and have an open strategic movement line with the federation, we sent 2 reserves to save 1502 and 1802. Only the 4th fleet federation reserve (that was regularly set up on turn 1, but that i forgot to update with the PW construction, considering to do that on turn 6...) was sent to help the SB, that would have gone down anyway.

We considered the starbase on the cheap(er) a good excange for the extra production and the easy money from federation on turn 6.


But, in general, if there is not an early production encrease for the federation, the cost to attack the marquis area on turn 6 isn't that bad: the federation just get 80sh extra money for turn 6 and a CA instead of an FFS on turn 6. If coalition attacks turn 7, the fleet redeployment is an enormous advantage, but if you plan to attack on turn 9/10 the difference is minimal and the easy SB become an interesting possibility...

By Richard Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Wednesday, September 14, 2022 - 12:39 pm: Edit

I think the SB should never actually be 'easy'. It's always possible for a savvy Kzinti player to have reserves in range, and if 90 Coalition ships go to the Marquise SB, that's where all three reserves should go, to do as much damage as possible.

30 plus ships backed by a SB will give you a large compot advantage. Don't squander such opportunities. Note that you can't save Kzinti planets and bases (outside of the capital and offmap) in the long term - so getting the most out of them is a must.

By Jeff Guthridge (Jeff_Guthridge) on Wednesday, September 14, 2022 - 12:58 pm: Edit

Recently in my cleaning of long overlooked storage containers, I discovered a beat up F&E boxed set. Inside were a metric donkey-tonne of baggies with punched counters and spare baggies in a roll (the pile fills the box almost completely), several loose sheets mostly photocopies but there is Mapsheet A on yellow cardstock and Mapsheet B on blue cardstock, and four booklets all dated 1993. The F&E Rule Book, Total War Part I, and the Total War Scenario book, as well as a Captain's Module MO#1.

I know what happened to the map from this set, it was hanging on the wall during a house fire in '99, so I'd need a replacement map. Is there anything else I'd need (assuming the counters are all there)?

I'm curious about if I'd be better off replacing the set with the current one or trying to update this one. Is this set outmoded too far to update with PDFs and a physical map?

Thoughts anyone?

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Wednesday, September 14, 2022 - 01:13 pm: Edit

There is a point of discussion here that often is not brought up because the late war only comes up occasionally in games.

Having the Feds come in one or more turns early means that they go to exhaustion earlier by that same amount. While this doesn't seem like much the "when" it happens does have an impact. Late war economy is important and losing 25% a bit earlier when the toys are nicer has an impact on effective push late the war. As with everything its a give and take. The Coalition can destroy infrastructures to disrupt economy and supply when they have their advantage and when the allies are unsuspecting.

On the flipside, its money management: The Fed if drawn in early they can make investments with this little bonus EPs earlier than normal to generate income/increase production

By Alex Chobot (Alendrel) on Wednesday, September 14, 2022 - 07:30 pm: Edit

Ryan, regarding Stefano’s question on allowed downgrade substitutions, I don’t see where in the SITs such info is provided.

Stefano, (450.4) says “[t]he following list is comprehensive”, which would indicate to me it supersedes what the OOB say (and that the OOBs themselves could be updated to match). It also refers to an expanded version covering more empires in the Warbook Annexes. (450.4) is included in the WA Supplemental File but is not yet updated to include empires introduced after the base game - a lot of the WA files are clearly placeholders/WIP, and I suspect they have been waiting on the updates to PO/CO/SO/AO to be finished, at the very least.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Thursday, September 15, 2022 - 04:40 pm: Edit

Stefano wrote:
>>But, in general, if there is not an early production encrease for the federation, the cost to attack the marquis area on turn 6 isn't that bad: the federation just get 80sh extra money for turn 6 and a CA instead of an FFS on turn 6. >>

I mean, yes, this is certainly true. But now that you *know* this, it seems unlikely that'll happen again in the future. The majority of the time, I find that the Kzinti usually have a significant number of ships on the Marquis SB starting on T4 or so; if the Coalition aren't whole hog capturing the Kzinti capital before they hit the Feds (which you can generally suss out, when they send a ton of ships to go kill the Hydrans, and leave the Kzinti homeworld untouched on T4...), the Kzinti can generally afford to stack two dozen+ ships on the Marquis SB in addition to the 7 ships it starts with (I usually have, by T6, a couple dozen ships, the 7 there, and then a full reserve on the Marquis SB most of the time). If the Coalition attack with 90 ships on T6, yeah, they can certainly kill it, but it'll cost them (due to the 3 dozen ships, plus a Fed reserve, plus potentially a second Kzinti reserve). And yeah, they kill it, but doing so gets the Feds a significant bonus (extra money, extra production, some bonus deployments for T7, an accelerated production schedule), which is a *billion* times better than what the Feds get if the Coalition do this on T7 (which is, well, nothing).

I think this is just a situation of "You weren't expecting this to happen, and then when it did, you were surprised that the penalties weren't as severe as you thought they were gonna be", which is fine, but now that you have gamed out the results, next time, it is very unlikely you'd let this happen the way it did.