How to retreat?

[tornakrelic]

If you would like to know how Hyperdrives/Engine Overcharge worked last time and why it got removed, dig a little around in the forum

I know how that worked and I would like something completely different for a different reason, there have been many discussions here over the years for some form of mechanic to escape uneven encounters. It is really difficult to balance them with too much or too little to work well, I know this. I still would like some such mechanic.

It work pretty well in a game like say Distant Worlds, fights still happen. Sure it is a very different game but they also share allot of similarities.

Personally I hate the "jump in and out" bullsmeg that plagues DW battles. If you want to be able to retreat, you should earn that opportunity by scouting ahead and not committing! And conversely, if your enemy successfully denies you that opportunity, they should be rewarded for it.

The issue with a speed based model in a terrain free environment is what Stormtrooper was getting at; if you are faster you can always get away and if you are slower you never can. If acceleration was a thing, things might be more interesting (see Honorverse battles and, in particular, the aftermath of First Hancock as well as the opening moves of Fourth? Grayson).

EDIT: for reference, 1st Hancock was in Short Victorious War and 4th Grayson was in Flag in Exile.

I can respect that view although I don't agree with it. I think you could just ignore it and perhaps make it optional as I do think it could be a love hate thing.

I think it add depth... scouting is still as important but it reduce the immediate effect of technology and the rather analogue nature of speed in engagements.

That's the thing. The jump out capability in DW (and Stellaris, for that matter) is a cushion for when you screwed up. It REDUCES depth, because the effects of your accomplishments/enemy mistakes are mitigated.

You haven't been blindsided with a fleet using HyperDeny in DW I would assume... That usually isn't until the late game though, early to mid-game hit and runs work well for both the player and AI. The jump out capability in DW allows for hit and run tactics that cannot be accomplished in Aurora, as jump blindness in game allows for a much more defensive gameplay without the need for counter-attacks to draw enemy ships back to defend their own territory, as well as being able to focus defenses on outer systems instead of needing defenses spread throughout the empire. Just my two cents though.

[QuakeIV]

May as well make a radical suggestion (I have always wished for freespace 2 style strategic combat).

Basically that system (particularly in the blue planet mod) would facilitate the following:  Ships from side A jump in to attack side B.  If side B doesn't like the engagement, they jump away.  There is then a recharge time where both sides are charging up their jump drives in their separate locations (in that particular universe 10-20 minutes), at which point side A can continue the pursuit.  This had a couple of effects.  First of all, if you are at an advantage and are on the attack, the enemy can to some extent jump around and avoid you for a while (while taking relatively little damage), or could potentially flee the system entirely.  It would be possible to harry them (or insert a blockade in their path if they have a predictable destination and ships are available) but if one group was determined to flee, then assuming relatively similar-ish tech levels it could generally do so and reach its destination.

This had the natural effect of mainly concentrating fighting around jump points and key solar system locations that had to be defended (such as large space stations or populated planets).  In other words fighting would still happen, but it would generally only occur if you could somehow force an unwilling defender to come out and attack you (or could catch them at a jump point).

This would more or less completely change how combat works so I think its probably pretty unlikely to ever happen, but I do think that the game of controlling your ship deployments could be pretty interesting.  There were also references to the idea of undeployed ships having more value than ones in the field, because once a ship is deployed it is effectively committed for the next 10-20 minutes and if the enemy then chooses to attack somewhere important then that ship is unable to redeploy to deal with that without a delay.  I think that concept would indeed occur and does lead to potentially interesting decision making regarding how you want to respond to a developing situation.

Additionally, this might significantly mitigate the difference between beam and missile ships in terms of range, because missile ships would have a sharply limited effective range, fundamental to the fact that if they fire from too far away then the enemy will just jump away and avoid the salvo entirely.  The beam ships could also pursue missile ships and have a relatively easy time of closing to engagement range.

[Jorgen_CAB]

This is also similar to how things went in DW too to some extent. Fights in deep space was usually rare and those fight rarely was decisive as one side would usually just withdraw of the fight was not in their favour. Fights in DW also usually were slow enough that reinforcement could arrive in time, especially if the fight happened in your territory.

Fights in space were usually against raiding forces so were mainly smaller skirmishers.

Large battles was mainly around space stations and population centres.

In Aurora you still need to patrol systems and protect your outlying colonies so battles should still happen because of it.

As it would take time for the engines to create the micro wormhole and jump there still are chances for a few strikes or close range combat to occur which can be devastating. But it should generally be less of an all or nothing affair most of the time if you are caught in a compromising situation and you are slower. In the current version you are usually alright as long as you are faster.

[tornakrelic]

This is also similar to how things went in DW too to some extent. Fights in deep space was usually rare and those fight rarely was decisive as one side would usually just withdraw of the fight was not in their favour. Fights in DW also usually were slow enough that reinforcement could arrive in time, especially if the fight happened in your territory.

Fights in space were usually against raiding forces so were mainly smaller skirmishers.

Large battles was mainly around space stations and population centres.

In Aurora you still need to patrol systems and protect your outlying colonies so battles should still happen because of it.

As it would take time for the engines to create the micro wormhole and jump there still are chances for a few strikes or close range combat to occur which can be devastating. But it should generally be less of an all or nothing affair most of the time if you are caught in a compromising situation and you are slower. In the current version you are usually alright as long as you are faster.

This. While not necessarily a bad thing, it does create a one track mind in terms of ship design and military doctrine.

Speed wins battles (of similar tech) and subsequently keeps those outer colonies from ever being in danger of assault, as an enemy can never reach them without fighting their way through your fleet in deep space, where the fleet with speed advantage dictates the terms of engagement.

The jump point vs some form of hyperdrive also creates major chokepoints allowing for defensive forces to concentrate on a few key jump points where they will have a significant advantage (entrenchment doctrine/mass assault doctrine when attacking) vs requiring a network of long range deep space satellites to detect and predict where and when enemy fleets will be dropping out of warp and having to spread defending forces out throughout the empire to be able to defend all your colonies while also sending counter-assaults into enemy territory to draw some of their attacking forces back out of your territory (allowing for blitzkrieg and mobile warfare doctrines as well as decentralized command, or auftragstaktik).

Again, it is not a 'bad vs good' argument, as both DW and Aurora are fantastic games, each with their own flaws and each with their own areas that shine. Ultimately it comes down to personal preference, for this instance it is whether you prefer choke point warfare or mobile warfare. In real life both situations can and do occur, mainly due to terrain and environmental conditions, and as both hyperdrives and jump points are both sci-fi, the creator of such sci-fi universe decides dictates the methods of transport, and the civilizations there-in would simply adapt doctrine accordingly.

[serger]

I think Aurora will be just too much micro-heavy with all those gizmo AND fully wide theater, though it might be much more interesting to have some mechanics for small raiding forces capable of infiltrating or spawning through mutiny, coupled with some form of patrol standing orders.

[tornakrelic]

Very true, the current game is already micro-intensive. Adding in a full theater of war would make the game almost if not completely unbearable, unless fleets (both player and NPR) had significantly improved AI, which is simply not feasible. Adding a component (that would be very expensive and only jump the ship it is on) that allowed for a ship to jump back through the last jump point it came through would, in combination with the current jump drive mechanic that allows for squadron jumps being up to 4m km away from the exiting jump point, allow for a hit and run mechanic or better yet a method of choke point breakthrough.

Currently, at least by mid-game, if a jump point is well defended then the only tactical solution is to throw fleets at it that are significantly larger and hope they survive the jump blindness with enough ships remaining to defeat the defenders (which is mass assault doctrine at it's finest, que Soviet national anthem). This does, however, act as a good method of keeping losing empires in a war from being insta-snowballed.

[Zincat]

I may be in the minority, but I do like the current model. It makes sense to me that a stronger and faster fleet will always kill the enemy, under the current model. And I don't have an interest in having even MORE micro than what we have right now.

In Aurora, if you are truly outmatched then jump point defense is currently your only choice, and I like it. Cold space is not a fair place at all... If you are inferior you die, and you can blame yourself for not being able to develop faster earlier on 

Regarding retreat mechanics.... personally I think they are cop outs. I can understand that a lot of people think it would make the game more interesting but...
Even if I were to concede that point, then you'd have the problem of making a mechanics that does NOT increase micro management and stays relevant and balanced. Not an easy thing.

As others said, the DW universe retreat mechanic is not good. And anyway, as soon as you get hyperdeny, EVERY fleet and base will have hyperdeny, so the possibility to retreat disappears forever. So anything component based would not work, as once you have a counter you'd mount the counter on EVERY ship you have, and so would your enemy.

[tornakrelic]

I may be in the minority, but I do like the current model. It makes sense to me that a stronger and faster fleet will always kill the enemy, under the current model. And I don't have an interest in having even MORE micro than what we have right now.

In Aurora, if you are truly outmatched then jump point defense is currently your only choice, and I like it. Cold space is not a fair place at all... If you are inferior you die, and you can blame yourself for not being able to develop faster earlier on 

Regarding retreat mechanics.... personally I think they are cop outs. I can understand that a lot of people think it would make the game more interesting but...
Even if I were to concede that point, then you'd have the problem of making a mechanics that does NOT increase micro management and stays relevant and balanced. Not an easy thing.

As others said, the DW universe retreat mechanic is not good. And anyway, as soon as you get hyperdeny, EVERY fleet and base will have hyperdeny, so the possibility to retreat disappears forever. So anything component based would not work, as once you have a counter you'd mount the counter on EVERY ship you have, and so would your enemy.

As a whole I completely agree. The only thing that annoys me is there being no counter to choke point defense. This is hardly a problem against NPRs, as their jump point defenses are mediocre at best, but having multiple player races displays the almost broken nature of jump points vs hyperdrives. Maybe a device that could create new jump points (for a ridiculous expense) would solve the problem?

The problem that I have (which isn't a big deal for most people, so don't take it the wrong way please) is that a technologically superior race (within reason) can send a fleet that is twice the size of a defending fleet that is technologically inferior (again within reason) and be defeated consistently. There is no counter to jump point defense except having several times the defending forces fleet size. Technological advantages help little (unless there is such a disparity that the superior force literally cannot be defeated, such as all end game tech fleet vs a conventional start fleet defending a jump point).

Unlike real life combat, with static jump points you cannot simply attack from a different direction, or "go around" or flank an enemy, you must plow through as there is no other tactic or strategy. This is especially apparent with dead end systems, as they can be defended almost indefinitely with a significantly smaller force of technologically inferior ships.

[captainwolfer]

I may be in the minority, but I do like the current model. It makes sense to me that a stronger and faster fleet will always kill the enemy, under the current model. And I don't have an interest in having even MORE micro than what we have right now.

In Aurora, if you are truly outmatched then jump point defense is currently your only choice, and I like it. Cold space is not a fair place at all... If you are inferior you die, and you can blame yourself for not being able to develop faster earlier on 

Regarding retreat mechanics.... personally I think they are cop outs. I can understand that a lot of people think it would make the game more interesting but...
Even if I were to concede that point, then you'd have the problem of making a mechanics that does NOT increase micro management and stays relevant and balanced. Not an easy thing.

As others said, the DW universe retreat mechanic is not good. And anyway, as soon as you get hyperdeny, EVERY fleet and base will have hyperdeny, so the possibility to retreat disappears forever. So anything component based would not work, as once you have a counter you'd mount the counter on EVERY ship you have, and so would your enemy.

As a whole I completely agree. The only thing that annoys me is there being no counter to choke point defense. This is hardly a problem against NPRs, as their jump point defenses are mediocre at best, but having multiple player races displays the almost broken nature of jump points vs hyperdrives. Maybe a device that could create new jump points (for a ridiculous expense) would solve the problem?

The problem that I have (which isn't a big deal for most people, so don't take it the wrong way please) is that a technologically superior race (within reason) can send a fleet that is twice the size of a defending fleet that is technologically inferior (again within reason) and be defeated consistently. There is no counter to jump point defense except having several times the defending forces fleet size. Technological advantages help little (unless there is such a disparity that the superior force literally cannot be defeated, such as all end game tech fleet vs a conventional start fleet defending a jump point).

Unlike real life combat, with static jump points you cannot simply attack from a different direction, or "go around" or flank an enemy, you must plow through as there is no other tactic or strategy. This is especially apparent with dead end systems, as they can be defended almost indefinitely with a significantly smaller force of technologically inferior ships.

This isn't necessarily true. The key is to use squadron jumps and jump drives with large jump ranges (at least 500k km). That puts the attacker well outside of decisive beam range, so the majority of attackers can avoid being destroyed in the 10-30 second before they recover from the jump. Of course, this does require being at least slightly faster than the defending ships.

[tornakrelic]

An easier solution would be to allow FAF missiles to function in game, as at least the fire and forget missiles could be used to jump in, launch all FAF missiles from the blind ship, who cares if it dies as you would at least be able to get a massive salvo or two off before being blown to bits.

I did consider using squadron jumps to give a little distance but that again works poorly against play controlled races, as I was playing both races and simply spread the defending ships around the jump point. It finally became feasible once I got the attacking race's squadron range up past 1m km but that still required 2:1 attacking ships (1-2 tech levels more advanced than the defending ships). To recreate, just split the fleet up (or use offsets) so that the smaller fleets are 60k-500k km apart or so (depending on tech levels of course).

This becomes a problem as the war progresses, as the attacker is effectively bled dry OR the attacker would simply go on defensive as well, leading to a cold war arms race that dwarfs the US-USSR arms race. This gives the inferior defending race time to catch up (as they only have to spend between half or a third as much on there fleets as the attacking fleets to stay competitive, leaving the extra resources for faster research).

[nuclearslurpee]

As a whole I completely agree. The only thing that annoys me is there being no counter to choke point defense. This is hardly a problem against NPRs, as their jump point defenses are mediocre at best, but having multiple player races displays the almost broken nature of jump points vs hyperdrives. Maybe a device that could create new jump points (for a ridiculous expense) would solve the problem?

The problem that I have (which isn't a big deal for most people, so don't take it the wrong way please) is that a technologically superior race (within reason) can send a fleet that is twice the size of a defending fleet that is technologically inferior (again within reason) and be defeated consistently. There is no counter to jump point defense except having several times the defending forces fleet size. Technological advantages help little (unless there is such a disparity that the superior force literally cannot be defeated, such as all end game tech fleet vs a conventional start fleet defending a jump point).

Unlike real life combat, with static jump points you cannot simply attack from a different direction, or "go around" or flank an enemy, you must plow through as there is no other tactic or strategy. This is especially apparent with dead end systems, as they can be defended almost indefinitely with a significantly smaller force of technologically inferior ships.

As others have mentioned, executing a squadron jump with appropriately teched-up jump drives is the way to beat a JP defense. I would say that while the current naval battle system is weighted entirely too much towards JP battles, they are a necessary mechanic in Aurora as they are really the major way a defender gains any tangible advantage over an attacker (the other possibility being to fight from orbit within STO range but this of course is a strategic defeat as the enemy will ransack your undefended colonies and lay siege).

There was an excellent suggestion made in the last big thread on this topic to tweak squadron jumps so that smaller ships gain a larger jump radius and larger ships emerge more tightly around a JP, which would preserve the importance of JPs as defensive choke points but allow for light raiding forces to be deployed which the defender must intercept with QRFs, adding a mobile component to warfare. I would favor this as it is quite simple and intuitive compared to many other ideas and adds a new dimension to warfare.

Another option would be to tweak the default JP network generation to have a higher concentration of loops. Currently it caries significantly but often the JP network is more like a tree than a network, which means there are often only 1-2 routes into enemy territory. A more interconnected galaxy with 3-6 routes to an enemy sector would mean the defender must spread out between several points while the attacker can concentrate, allowing a successful though costly JP assault to be somewhat less difficult to pull off. This would essentially be a simplification of the hyperdrive idea some have suggested in that it adds more routes of attack which can be exploited, but again without adding a complex new mechanic to the game.

Of course, the elephant in the room is that NPRs likely cannot deal with either of these things very well...game AIs in general struggle to handle multiple fronts and mobile/patrol warfare even in major releases from large studios (looking at you, Paradox...), so certainly if the AI in Aurora were to handle such things it would be a miracle on the part of Steve. The present system works for the AI which is an understated benefit, and my impression is that Steve intends the spoilers to do most of the work as far as changing things up from what would otherwise be an endless sequence of JP assaults.

I did consider using squadron jumps to give a little distance but that again works poorly against play controlled races, as I was playing both races and simply spread the defending ships around the jump point. It finally became feasible once I got the attacking race's squadron range up past 1m km but that still required 2:1 attacking ships (1-2 tech levels more advanced than the defending ships). To recreate, just split the fleet up (or use offsets) so that the smaller fleets are 60k-500k km apart or so (depending on tech levels of course).

For PvP campaigns I think it becomes necessary to establish house rules in any case, as the game is too exploitable by players otherwise. For example a house rule of JP defenses being only located at the JP rather than in a defensive net may be necessary. This may seem quite restrictive but can be necessary and actually can design space for more interesting strategies and ship designs purpose-built for this kind of JP defense. Others who regularly play PvP I'm sure can share many examples of house rules they impose to keep the game varied and interesting - no box launcher spam being a common one, I think.

[Stormtrooper (OP)]

As others have mentioned, executing a squadron jump with appropriately teched-up jump drives is the way to beat a JP defense.

Yeah, technically true, practically... I used it once. And since then I knew it was the last time and I'd rather suck up damage than ever use it again. Why? Micromanagement related with it. The game doesn't track whether your fleet is capable of squadron jump "globally" (for example 1:3 ratio of jump capable and not jump capable ships with squadron size of 3), you need to manually split your fleet into squadrons of 3 (for example), give each of the new "fleet" an order and then struggle to combine them back together while doing combat with all those "micro fleets". Never again am I going through so many clicks, setups and fleet window scrolling.

Another option would be to tweak the default JP network generation to have a higher concentration of loops.

Yes please.

[Kylemmie]

Another option would be to tweak the default JP network generation to have a higher concentration of loops.

Yes please.

Can't we already do that?

[nuclearslurpee]

Yeah, technically true, practically... I used it once. And since then I knew it was the last time and I'd rather suck up damage than ever use it again. Why? Micromanagement related with it. The game doesn't track whether your fleet is capable of squadron jump "globally" (for example 1:3 ratio of jump capable and not jump capable ships with squadron size of 3), you need to manually split your fleet into squadrons of 3 (for example), give each of the new "fleet" an order and then struggle to combine them back together while doing combat with all those "micro fleets". Never again am I going through so many clicks, setups and fleet window scrolling.

One solution is to research better JP squadron size which you should do anyways as it improves the ratio of jump tonnage to weapons tonnage. With base squad size 3 you need one jump ship per two full combat ships, and jump ships are usually poorly armed at best. If you had say squad size 8 then the ratio is one and seven which gives you much better firepower.

That said the micro is quite annoying and while there seem to be a few different orders to use (involving subfleets) I've yet to actually figure out how to make them work well. That said, the micro does have a benefit as splitting your fleet into several groups which squad-jump at different positions makes it easier to evade pursuit until your weapons come online as the enemy can only chase so many of your subfleets.

Another option would be to tweak the default JP network generation to have a higher concentration of loops.

Yes please.

Can't we already do that?

Only for Random Stars games, as Stormtrooper has pointed out in past threads on the subject with great, um, emphasis. 

[Stormtrooper (OP)]

One solution is to research better JP squadron size which you should do anyways as it improves the ratio of jump tonnage to weapons tonnage. With base squad size 3 you need one jump ship per two full combat ships, and jump ships are usually poorly armed at best. If you had say squad size 8 then the ratio is one and seven which gives you much better firepower.

That's why I consider coming back to squadron jumps at some point, but only once I'll be in a very late game, with related research maxed or at least almost maxed out.

Your argument about splitting your forces is good though, except if my fleets are slower and the enemy decides to fight rather than retreat I'm screwed anyways and if my fleets are faster or the enemy does retreat I don't need my forces splitted at all.