Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[xenoargh]

Basically, I'd like to see a new combat mechanic, called Retire, that acts like Retreat, but places the ship back into the available Deployment pool.  Or it could just be a change to Retreat; either way works.  I don't think this can be done with mod code atm, otherwise I'd probably try it out.

Why?

Well, sometimes it would be really beneficial to remove fleet elements from the fighting and replace them with another type without losing them from the battle permanently. 

For example, fighter wings; we may want to use them early until they've lost some CR but are still viable and then Retire them, holding them for use later, along with the carrier(s).  It'd be a big improvement tactically, especially from the Admiral AI's POV, since it could engage in layered tactical approaches more easily when fielding big fleets.  The system right now resembles a paper-rock-scissors game, where the wrong initial response may be all it takes to lose a scenario; it might be better to have a more flexible way to handle things.

[Coolrah]

I'd definitely like this as a feature but I feel like there would have to be limits on frigates and certain ships that have a peak time.  Another thing is I'd have to ask you is would then being retired and then redeployed restart the ships combat peak time. Maybe it shouldn't fully restart but start back up half of what it was when it left the battlefield to help maintain balance?

[xenoargh]

would then being retired and then redeployed restart the ships combat peak time

I'm thinking that it shouldn't effect that or heal or re-arm ships; otherwise it'd probably be too easy to abuse. 

I think that all such mechanics should happen on the battlefield, personally.

[PCCL]

I think peak effectiveness time would "recharge" at a fraction of the loss rate when "retired", maybe 1/5 or so

[BillyRueben]

I think this mechanic would be cool with a few limitations applied. Maybe something like only frigates and below can utilize this, and they take a small hit to their CR to use it. Any reason to not use the "Deploy All" button at the start of every fight is a good choice IMO.

[ciago92]

I have to admit, based off the title I thought you meant something like Fate's retire. You pass on one or two good things to your kid, maybe the flagship (destroyer or frigate probably) or money or skill, plus you get an increase to the rate you gain exp, and you get a new game plus lol.

[MidnightSun]

This is a great idea. At the moment, I rarely use Retreat for anything other than frigates, mainly because I need to be 100% sure I won't need that ship again.

I too don't think any recovery should happen when "retired," as in the grand scheme of things, that's not a lot of time. Repairs and CR recovery usually take days, so any recovery in the short time span of a battle seems unrealistic. And, it'd be far too easy to abuse.

[Megas]

I recently discovered that retreating ships from normal battle costs double CR deployment.  This really hurts, so much that I do not retreat ships anymore.  I will sooner risk destruction than drain CR down the nothing.  CR is barely tolerable (without 100% CR and -30% CR costs) on my side with perfect play.  On the flip side, I often get to fight surviving AI fleets severely crippled by low CR.

"Retire" would be nice.

[Vind]

For this reason i never use frigates with AI captains in the fleet. AI is too weak to do something fast in the time-limit imposed on frigates and each frigate cost 1 command point to retreat too. Only exception is brawler frigate but with speed of an destroyer it is dead in AI hands in any serious fight.

[xenoargh]

@ciago92:  I meant it in the military sense; it and "retreat" are synonymous functionally, but they have different connotations:

"The second infantry element, upon observing fixed defenses on their line of march that were well-sited and were able to observe their movements from as far away as 2000 meters, retired behind the ridge and coordinated air and artillery strikes on the defensive positions for the rest of the day."  

"An armored platoon patrolling without organic support, upon making contact with hostile organic elements during a patrol near the village, retreated to the southward after taking multiple hits from RPG-7s and rifle-launched grenades."

Functionally, both words mean, "move your stuff away from contact with the enemy", but "retire" generally gets used for when it's being done because it's the best choice tactically, rather than "retreat", which generally gets used for situations where no other choice will allow the unit to continue to exist.

[JT]

How about "Withdraw", for better semantics?  While "Retire" is probably more accurate in a military context, media has an influence on meaning -- "Withdraw" might be better understood by the layman as meaning a temporary pull-back, especially for people familiar with the concept of a "tactical withdrawal" which I knew even before becoming a hard-sci-fi buff, whereas "Retreat" implies a Python-esque "run away, run away!" that I don't think anyone would mistake as being temporary.

One deus ex I can throw in the machina, though: why not just improve the Retreat mechanics to behave like the proposed Retire mechanics, and rename Retreat accordingly?  The Honorverse certainly tells us that it is abominable survival strategy to split a formation and have elements scatter -- and while the Honorverse has the dubious honour of being, you know, fictional, it does mean that it's supported in the genre fiction. =)