I'm against disengagement in general. At least this type of disengagement, a sudden "speed boost" that lets you escape. I'm all in favor of playing with sensors and such.
I am FOR disengagement in general; especially this type of disengagement.
Disengagement by speed or climate interference was a thing in battles in the past. The more high tech a conflict, in space, the less disengagement makes sense.
And I want to simulate (perhaps 'echo' is the better term) battles of the past. I'm not interested in Aurora's "realism" because Trans-Newtonian Elements aren't real. I see literally no reason why "The more high tech a conflict, in space, the less disengagement makes sense."
The Honor Harrington universe does not exist because David Weber thinks that is our most realistic future, but rather because he wanted to write Hornblower or Aubry-Maturin books and the actual, historical Age of Sail battles had already been thoroughly mined for fiction. So he invented a whole raft of future tech that 'just happened' to turn space battles into analogs of Age of Sail actions. Ships with broadsides and bow & stern chasers and essentially 2-D combat. Ships that could 'turn and run for it' over the horizon/hyper limit.
You say it offers more tactical options. I say that it makes decisions less important. Because well, you can always "flee" albeit at a cost.
SpaceMaster allows us to magically refit entire ship classes after deployment, because we forgot to add fire control systems during design. You may say that was an important decision and we should live with the cost of our mistakes, but I say no sane ship architect would overlook such a detail.
Likewise, my ship's crew would not overlook details about range to enemies, range to jump points, weapons reach, travel times at various speeds, etc. They would know exactly how far my survey cruiser could go from the jump point and still be able to spot an approaching Necron in time to flee safely. I say, that's the sort of micro-management Aurora should be shielding us from. . . with a "Run Away!" button.
I would suggest not thinking of WW2 fights. Nowadays, with radars, satellites and the like, Similar "tech" nations would no really be able to retreat once committed, not in air nor in naval warfare.
I *WOULD* suggest thinking of WWII fights. And Great War fights. And Balkan War fights. And Russo-Japanese fights. And South American fights. And Steam & Steel fights. And U.S. Civil War fights. And Age of Sail fights. And Imjin War fights. And Viking raids. And Roman-Carthaginian fights. And Greek-Persian fights.
And Star Wars fights. And Star Trek fights. And Firefly/Serenity fights. And Black Fleet fights. And The Last Starfighter fights. And Battle Beyond the Stars fights. And The Expanse fights. And Royal Cinnabar Navy fights. And even Blake's 7 fights.
In short, anything and everything that is *NOT* modern (or cold war) wet-navy (and air) battle, where sensors reign supreme and a first-strike missile swarm wipes out your enemy. I am not interested in seeing Aurora turn into "Harpoon, the PC version". Such a thing already exists.
I feel that this would be a meta-change to try to tailor the game in order to make wars last longer, while they should not.
Why shouldn't they? Why
should Aurora space combat be so decisive? How is that more fun than multiple small skirmishes? If my patrol destroyers are guaranteed to die (uselessly) when an enemy missile cruiser shows up, is it still fun to build and deploy them?
This is like Mass Drivers all over again. "It's fun to have lots of ships flying around doing commerce, so let's introduce a ground facility to remove the need for that." I've stopped complaining about mass drivers because I (personally) don't have to use them.
I remember reading one of those declarations by the pentagon, I think it was, that nowadays a non-nuclear war between powerful nations (say China-Russia) would be over in a matter of hours, because in that period of time one of the two would lose the capabilities to strike the other, and be reduced to trying to defend with ground troops.
[sarcasm] I can imagine how excited the Axis & Allies folks are to make
that board game. "Flip a coin to see who will eventually win, then spend four hours playing it out!" [/sarcasm]
'Realism' is no replacement for fun, just as truth is no defense for verisimilitude. If you are suggesting the "One True Way" to play Aurora is 'speed at all costs' because in space,
everyone can see you hide and that's 'realistic', then I disagree. Aurora is NOT "the most realistic space sim ever," it's "a fun game of space combat, exploration, and empire management."
Watching my fleet die because the only way to avoid that is to probe everywhere with missiles and fighters or to mount monster sensors that can light up an entire star system is NOT FUN for me. Don't force me to play Aurora
your way.