quote:
Originally posted by Seawolf:
dmm, It was a post to eveeryone not just you.
Yes, I realized that. I just didn't want others to confuse my ideas with other peoples' ideas. I think we're all posting for everyone, aren't we?
quote:
Originally posted by Seawolf:
I also notice you didn't talk about the supply usage or the fact that some ships would get more movement than others.
I don't know what you mean by some ships getting more movement than others. Please explain.
Regarding supply usage: I'm changing my mind on that, somewhat. I now prefer the idea of using remaining movement points (MP) to retreat. (See a later post of mine. Also the Starfire Posts are interesting.) Of course, using that MP would use up supplies as usual.
quote:
Originally posted by Seawolf:
As far as your example goes in A where you have a 10 ship fleet verses a 15 ship fleet ( I assuming that you are playing in a simultanous game otherwise this doesn't apply)
I was thinking in turn-based actually.
quote:
Originally posted by Seawolf:
if there is more than 1 colony to destroy if makes sense to split up your fleet and force him to do the same. if not you get a free shot at a colony or 2.
But in either example the strategy, IMO, is the decision you make to split the fleet or attack a group of ships. Not, having an out in case it was a bad decision.
I think you're missing the point: without retreat, there's almost never a reason for splitting a fleet, for either A or B. Consider just the first example: If A is so stupid as to split his fleet, then (usually) B can keep his together and kill each of A's sub-fleets in turn, DURING THE SAME TURN. Unless A managed to move one of his sub-fleets out of range of B -- but then why didn't A just move his whole fleet out of range? So there's NO strategic choice for A to make; he should keep his fleet together. Ditto for B. (I'm assuming that neither A nor B is an idiot, and I'm ignoring some special cases.)
But now consider if there is retreating, and suppose A splits his fleet. When it is B's turn, he doesn't know how much movement A's ships have left. If he keeps his fleet intact, and A's ships retreat, he runs the risk of running out of MP before tracking down all of A's ships. But if he splits up, he may have to give up numerical advantage in some battles.
I know I'm making no-retreat sound worse than it actually is. Even with no-retreat, I can think of examples where splitting of fleets might help. But my basic point is this:
Adding good retreat rules will HELP strategic play, not hurt it. It will be richer, more interesting, and more in line with common sense. (And it wouldn't be very hard to code.)