Fleet size disenagge limit

[ANGRYABOUTELVES]

I really would not like no longer being able to fight retreat battles. Faking retreats has saved my fleet multiple times; having the enemy fleet split up can let you win otherwise non-winnable fights, if you can take out the split up ships fast enough. Actual retreats that I don't take losses in are still tense and engaging, as a single slip-up can lead to losing a ship. People keep mentioning save-scumming retreat battles where they lose a lot of ships, but Ironman mode exists and those kind of retreat battles become a lot more relevant when it's turned on.

I generally don't auto-resolve pursuits, as it's more supply efficient to send out one dedicated fast SO "chaser" destroyer or frigate to mulch through the weakened combat ships and civilian loot pinatas than it is to deploy enough ships in auto-resolve to kill anything. When I auto-resolve with the ships I would usually send to chase, all that happens is the enemy loses CR, when I know that if I was piloting then most of the enemy would be dead.

[FooF]

If I'm in a retreat-battle, I've usually screwed up somewhere. I don't make a habit of using the "fake retreat" option because I'm not keen on gaming the system, so to speak. It does give an advantage in some instances.

If it were to go the way of the dodo, I don't think I'd fret about it. Giving the option to sacrifice a ship is kind of like auto-resolve: I'm guaranteed to lose something but if I retreat-battle, I might be able to save everything. Alternatively, I could lose everything! There's just a sour taste in automatically losing multiple ships.

I do kind of like the "rear guard" option suggested by intrinsic_parity, though instead of a timer, I just think the rear-guard ships should start closer to the bottom of the map while the non-rear guard ships start closer to the middle. It could be used as the "fake retreat" option but since you're deploying your whole fleet, it would be CR prohibitive to do so. Anyways, it allows your (designated) fighting ships to stall while the civilian/other ships make a getaway.

[Rap1d]

Thanks for the added info!

Hmm. Thinking this through a bit, what about a "sacrifice X points of ships to get away" option, sort of like when you're picking ships for pursuit? That would have the advantage of letting you know exactly what you need to drop to be able to get away, and wouldn't belabor the process. Made a note.

That would be ok. Honestly, anywhere you put this information in the game, I think would be fine. I wouldn't mind if the information was available in the fleet screen somewhere or before an engagement like you suggested, but I'd rather know it before you get in a "guaranteed ship loss" situation by misplaying in the sector map. For example, some kind of simple summary of your fleet that would be written in the fleet screen, or on the screen where you choose which officer pilots what. Like small fast fleets would have "A small and very fast fleet, can escape any unwanted fights". Than a larger fleet would have "An agile fleet, however not small enough to escape every engagement" and an even larger would have "A formidable fleet. It's sheer size prevents disengaging properly."


However, I think it is crucial that you can get punished if you misplay in the sector map, and that you can and and will get punished for getting caught by a fast fleet while sporting huge number of cargo ships and tankers, or if you get caught by hunter fleets. Taking the possibility of save scumming into the decision process of resolving this, and just throwing the punishment for misplaying away just because the majority of people will save scum would be a mistake in my opinion.


If you think about the rear guard options that people suggest (I think it is definitely an idea worth exploring), just make sure to make it reeaally hard. Like maybe the ships you choose to distract the opposing fleet start the fight surrounded or something.

[zaimoni]

The information needs to be in the UI to prevent save-scumming.  (I normally experience two motives for save-scumming: powergaming, and working around UI defects [as understood by a wargaming grognard].  This is a UI defect: I'm pretty sure that in-game the fleet captain would know the disengagement capabilities of the fleet, so there is no valid rationale for hiding this from the player.])

[Megas]

zaimoni explained better and more succinctly than I did.

[TaLaR]

The information needs to be in the UI to prevent save-scumming.  (I normally experience two motives for save-scumming: powergaming, and working around UI defects [as understood by a wargaming grognard].  This is a UI defect: I'm pretty sure that in-game the fleet captain would know the disengagement capabilities of the fleet, so there is no valid rationale for hiding this from the player.])

But don't we actually have this info, just not as single easy to see value? Sum up your deploy costs and check if it is below 40% battlesize. More than that is risky.

[Megas]

I doubt every player wants to (or can) crunch numbers in his head or on pen-and-paper, and doing it every time his fleet changes.  Player needs to know the rules and remember how much each of his ships are worth.  This is the sort of info that would be useful on the HUD somewhere.

[zaimoni]

But don't we actually have this info, just not as single easy to see value? Sum up your deploy costs and check if it is below 40% battlesize. More than that is risky.

That almost constructively demonstrates why omitting it as a single easy to see value, is a UI defect.

[Ryncage]

I wouldn't mind a "sacrifice x to escape" sort of option. That sort of thing should be open to good decision making however.

Using a freighter or tanker as your sacrifice shouldn't be worth as much as sacrifcing more combat capable ships, or it could be tied to something like, faction personality, where throwing away freighters would be effective against a pirate fleet since they are out to loot and plunder to begin with, but less so woth others.

Then again, its pretty rare for me to make a mistake on the map to be in a position where i need to retreat given how much i've played, so i dont know if such an option would make me bite the bullet instead of save scum my lazy and impatiently made mistakes.

[Thaago]

I would miss the retreat scenario because I play Iron Man quite a bit - a lot of my most tense moments come from trying to protect my support ships after I get ambushed by a superior fleet. However I do occasionally use the "false retreat" trick to split up the enemy... but thats a valid tactic isn't it? You expose your support ships to danger for a tactical advantage. (The retreat scenario does force deploy all your ships, right?)

One way of improving retreat scenario's might be to remove the side deployment and just start the fleets closer to each other (both coming in from the bottom of the map, the retreating fleet slightly ahead). As the AI is not broken up the player no longer can defeat them in detail, so it stops being an advantage. The player's noncombat ships should be automatically set to a full retreat so that they don't have that annoying "turn around oh wait I should be retreating" behavior, and the player would need to fight the enemy hard for a little while to save them.

[Megas]

I would miss the retreat scenario because I play Iron Man quite a bit - a lot of my most tense moments come from trying to protect my support ships after I get ambushed by a superior fleet. However I do occasionally use the "false retreat" trick to split up the enemy... but thats a valid tactic isn't it? You expose your support ships to danger for a tactical advantage. (The retreat scenario does force deploy all your ships, right?)

Yes, defender is forced to deploy all.  Early in the game, player may not need or have pure support ships except maybe a Dram.  Fake out is less of an option later when pure support gets added or fleet gets too big to retreat to begin with.