Greg Smith
Mongoose
So if the target is the only battle-level ship in the fleet and comes under attack by the bulk if the enemy fleet, is withdrawing it kosher?
tourney scoring
- Thread starter katadder
- Start date
In my case it was loss of firepower, loss of command +1, dogfighting bonuses - but to give away a guaranteed 5vp in my opinion was better than giving away a guaranteed 40.
I think tactical withdrawals make more sense in campaigns than in tournaments, really - since in a campaign your admiral would see the ships coming after his scalp and flee the field if he had any sense, whereas in a tournament it's not so common-sense oriented.
I think tactical withdrawals make more sense in campaigns than in tournaments, really - since in a campaign your admiral would see the ships coming after his scalp and flee the field if he had any sense, whereas in a tournament it's not so common-sense oriented.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
It does indeed make much more sense in campaigns. Although the scenario is one-sided in campaigns. It would also be possible in campaigns to chose a fleet that forced the enemy's choice of assassination target and then deploying it in a position to withdraw.
Alex, your choice to withdraw your Morshin was probably a sensible one and I might have done the same if I were in your position. My problem is with the scenario really, which rewards retreat.
Alex, your choice to withdraw your Morshin was probably a sensible one and I might have done the same if I were in your position. My problem is with the scenario really, which rewards retreat.
It also rewards people who take a single ship at a higher PL, because it makes it a no-brainer as to whom the enemy is going to be after, whilst someone who's stuck taking all Raid, they're left guessing as to which ship they may want to look after.
Funny scenario - I would suggest that perhaps you could limit tactical withdrawals to jump points only, rather than fleeing over board edges. At least then you get a turn to try and kill them/disrupt the JP
Funny scenario - I would suggest that perhaps you could limit tactical withdrawals to jump points only, rather than fleeing over board edges. At least then you get a turn to try and kill them/disrupt the JP
Epaminondas
Mongoose
Very few battles are ever to the complete destruction of the enemy historically, however.
Generally only when the enemy has no way to retreat; and most losses inflicted in battles are generally in the retreat, not in the actual battle.
Particularly with jump engines, any ship that is badly damaged has a huge incentive to disengage... unless you are doing something like the Battle of the Line, or that episode in season 2 where a Narn ship shields a civilian ship while it jumps out, a capital ship represents a large chunk of a planet's GDP, and YEARS of dockyard work.
Repairs are generally alot cheaper then a new ship.
Even if you think the capitain is a coward, and you shoot him; at least he saved the for latter operations!
===
In fact, one wargaming problem is that historically, no commander or troops would ever accept the losses which a normal wargame generates.
Generally only when the enemy has no way to retreat; and most losses inflicted in battles are generally in the retreat, not in the actual battle.
Particularly with jump engines, any ship that is badly damaged has a huge incentive to disengage... unless you are doing something like the Battle of the Line, or that episode in season 2 where a Narn ship shields a civilian ship while it jumps out, a capital ship represents a large chunk of a planet's GDP, and YEARS of dockyard work.
Repairs are generally alot cheaper then a new ship.
Even if you think the capitain is a coward, and you shoot him; at least he saved the for latter operations!
===
In fact, one wargaming problem is that historically, no commander or troops would ever accept the losses which a normal wargame generates.
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Alexb83 said:
That would be good.
Too few jump point capable ships in the game and most of them are high priority targets lost early in a game. From a fluff perspective if my ship is faster than yours how do you represent the idea that I can just run away from you and get beyond weapons range? How do you represent fleeing to another area of the conflict where I have reinforcements? We are already dealing with lots of oddball problems with a limited 'edge' in space. If we going all 'realistic' why does EA or the other long range races ever start an engagement at 24 inches...they should always be able to start beyond 40 inches or their maximium weapons range.
I do agree teh one flight off the edge is silly, but do not go from one silly extreme to the other. Tourney points are kinda strange and need a tweak not a wholesale change of the game mechanics for withdrawl.
Ripple
I do agree teh one flight off the edge is silly, but do not go from one silly extreme to the other. Tourney points are kinda strange and need a tweak not a wholesale change of the game mechanics for withdrawl.
Ripple
Greg Smith
Mongoose
It was only the possibility of the withdrawl of an assassination target that I found somewhat gamey. If assassination is a tourney scenario, it is probably part of the tweak that is needed.
The downer I can see to making tac withdrawals hyperspace only in tourney assassination is that certain races (Minbos, Vorlons, Shadows) are going to be in luck since they have AJP on everything - other races, like early EA and Narn are going to be stumped as they tend to have far fewer ships with the JP trait.
We asked Matt about that - the point of assassination is that you /kill/ the target, not scare him away to fight another day. And you still get 1/4 his VP, just not doubled (since you didn't kill him).
The option should remain to flee, I think, as it's a sensible decision if you're in trouble, but restricting it to hyperspace only eliminates the 'but I'd just chase you down' notion. It also gives you a serious incentive to take at least one JP capable ship in your fleet (not that it's hard to do so for any race)
The option should remain to flee, I think, as it's a sensible decision if you're in trouble, but restricting it to hyperspace only eliminates the 'but I'd just chase you down' notion. It also gives you a serious incentive to take at least one JP capable ship in your fleet (not that it's hard to do so for any race)
I think the point is that reducing retreat to jump capable ships forces ship selections that are not equal across the board, mean you can eliminate the possibility of escape very early with a lucky shot/concentrated fire, does not cover the possibility of a ship that can simply out run your fleet being unable to run away due to no jump point, a few other things I cannot remember here.
While I originally was sympathetic to the idea of the thread, at this point all I am hearing is sour grapes and no thinking of the variety of fleets you are affecting. Your restricting retreat for many fleets to almost impossibility given fleet manuever and very limited jump point capable hulls. Your original arguement about realism has fallen apart as when the realism arguement is phrased for the other side (ie how did you catch that sunhawk?) you simply ignore the point.
Ripple
While I originally was sympathetic to the idea of the thread, at this point all I am hearing is sour grapes and no thinking of the variety of fleets you are affecting. Your restricting retreat for many fleets to almost impossibility given fleet manuever and very limited jump point capable hulls. Your original arguement about realism has fallen apart as when the realism arguement is phrased for the other side (ie how did you catch that sunhawk?) you simply ignore the point.
Ripple
Similar threads
