Dilvish wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:43 pmUm, is that a realism argument or an enjoyable gameplay dynamics argument? The latter is entirely the reason for the current system.
Hmm, yeah, I guess it comes from realism (intuitive expectations I'd say). But I'm unsure about it not being also enjoyable.
Dilvish wrote: ↑Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:43 pmMy recollection is that originally blockades only blocked movement for one turn, but that was considered undesirably weak, so we made the blockade dynamic stronger, but allowed for retreat along the starlane of entry. I would expect you could find some forum discussions of those considerations if you search for them.
Now I've done the digging.
You implemented it in may 2013, stemming from
a more general combat reworking thread. After reading those, I see the new blockade system was motivated to solve
a problem with a new mechanic: the combats were made less deathly and from then on there could be survivors in both sides, and that would make defending choke points harder. So can I understand that enemy fleets passing through blockaded systems after surviving a turn of combat was never playtested?
I think I lack the gameplay experience to imagine all the implications that such change (OP's suggestion, including the two-turn combat rule if invaders want to cross the system) would have. Let me do some divagation here, corrections and real experience are very welcome.
Depending on the number/strength of survivors after first combat turn in a choke point:
* Invaders > Defenders
- As current mechanics: After second turn, If defenders do not retreat, invaders will have killed all or most of the remaining non-hidden defenders. If defending survivors remain, the invaders won't be able to pass through the choke point. This is only "bad" when the defender keeps a single hidden carrier, as pointed out by Telos. But I guess that will be fixed by
noisy launch bays.
- With OP's suggestion: After second turn of combat, if defenders do not retreat, invaders will have killed all or most of the remaining non-hidden defenders and be able to continue travelling behind the choke point. Not very different to current mechanics (so pointless to change it).
* Invaders < Defenders
- As current mechanics: If invaders do not retreat, they will be eventually finished off.
- With OP's suggestion: If invaders do not retreat and try to cross system, the second combat round will finish them off or leave few of them to pass through the choke point. That is quite different to current mechanics, but a small fleet of defenders can pursue them, or blockade them at destination. So I'd say it shouldn't make defending really harder than with current mechanics, but would allow for some enjoyable gameplay dynamics (suicide fleets to try and sneak a few fast ships to wander around enemy territory scouting, cutting supply lines, bombarding undefended colonies
), but again, that should be easy to cut short by the defender.
* Invaders = Defenders
- As current mechanics: If no one retreats and no reinforcements came to break the balance, one side will eventually prevail with heavy losses.
- With OP's suggestion: After second turn of combat, if no one retreats, heavy losses are expected for both sides, but the invading survivors will be able to pass through the choke point. Here we have a very different behaviour compared to current mechanics. Defending could be harder. The previously mentioned enjoyable dynamics might be too harsh for the defender. But I really don't know; in my game, very often, some AIs manage to move invading fleets into my territory, and I just hunt them down; sometimes they enjoy some back and forth to make me lose time on the chase, but the planetary defenses and mines eventually wear them off enough to divide my chasing party into two and end the cat&mouse game.
In the end and without further input, I'm inclined to think that the OP's suggestion would be more enjoyable than current mechanics.