Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

What you guys are thinking of is an RTS-style combat system.

Basically, when a battle begins, it is paused. Once all units have been given orders, it unpauses and the ships fight it out in real-time like a movie. Orders may or may not be issued while the battle rages, but after a set time increment the battle pauses and orders can be changed.

A) After the initial orders, the battle plays out in real-time where you can issue orders as the battle rages until the battle ends.

B) After the initial orders, the battle plays out in real-time for a set time. The battle pauses and orders can be changed. Unpause, watch, pause, orders, unpause, watch, etc. until the battle ends.

(I prefer A)

This is always something I have desired in a game like this. It fixes a lot of problems inherent with turn-based combat. I.E. whoever attacks first will usually win (most evident in MOO2). Plus, it would just be fun to watch! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon10.gif

Just imagine, full 3d fleets with incredible visual effects set loose upon each other in a real-time combat scenario with you, the player, strapped in for a good show. Sit back and watch the action! (Okay, a bit overboard, but I can dream can't I?)

But that is something for SEV.. maybe. I hear a lot of good about MM and how they respond to player input.

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

Arc.Smiloid,

Both of the models you mention have things going for them.

A. is like Starfleet Command (a great, real-time adaptation of Star Fleet Battles, IMHO) which provides for a seamless and thus more-"realistic" simulation of starship combat. Assuming that players can set the speed as low as desired (as in SFC), this won't result in lack of time making for rushed/poor decisions (a leading reason why RTS games can be disliked by turn-based players, I believe).

B. is the Combat Mission model (I keep finding myself relating this game to SE4, though I don't plan it http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif). CM provides a really fascinating mix of your "omniscient" orders given at the start of each minute-long turn as they're interpreted by your troops (a tactical AI that can partially or totally take over depending on how the turn plays out) during the turn.

As big a supporter as I used to be of total player control in a turn-based environment (and still am, compared to the frenzied click-fest that substitutes for "strategy" in most RT'S' games), I must say that SFC and CM have changed my view, and I now enjoy the non-turn-based structure they offer, in addition to turn-based games.

Well, that's a bit off the subject: the "I move then fire; you fire then move" tradeoff of the non-simultaneous/non-impulse movement system in SE4 that can result in the combat problems mentioned. AFAIK, the turn-based game that best corrected this was Star Fleet Battles. By breaking movement down into a per-hex/impulse basis and allowing fire at that level, it prevented the sort of excesses present in SE4 (and Starfire before it, along with every other tactical all-move-then-fire or fire-then-all-move or fire-at-will-during-movement system) without going real-time. Something like opportunity fire would do this too, but wouldn't be as thorough a solution as impulse movement. However, it might be a worthwhile trade-off since today's players don't really expect to need the patience that impulse movement requires (myself included, though I was happy with impulse movement 18 years ago).

Just my two centi-credits...

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

In an impulse movement system, you break the turn down into a number of "impulses" equal to the fastest object in the game.

Then make a chart such that the movement of each "thing" is spaced out over the turn. For a very simple chart, which assumes everything in the game can travel at a speed of either 1, 2, 3, or 4: (I# is the impulse number; play the turn as impulse 1 (move then fire); impulse 2 (move then fire previously unfired weapons); impulse 3 (move then fire previously unfired weapons); impulse 4 (move then fire previously unfired weapons). S# is the speed of the object. The # is for the movement point a unit at a given speed spends on a given impulse.)

-----I1-----I2-----I3--------I4
.
S1..................................1
.
S2.............1...................2
.
S3.....1.......2..................3
.
S4.....1.......2.......3.........4


Thus a unit with a speed of 1 moves only in the final impulse. A unit with a speed of 2 moves on the 2nd and 4th impulses, etc. Some systems make the "everybody moves" impulse be the first, instead of the final, but final impulse tends to work better (because it keeps fast ships from moving in rings around slow ones, and prevents slow ones from briefly being as fast as speedy ones).

SFB also treats all weapon recharge rates in terms of impulses, so a weapon fired at the end of turn 1 can't be fired at the beginning of turn 2. (SFB uses 32 impulses per turn.)

Those of you who have followed this far have probably figured out that impulse movement is a form of approximation of true simultaneous-continuous movement. Just as in calculus, the more finely you divide up the units of time and space, the closer this system approximates continuous simultaneous activity. SFB approaches (or transcends <grin> the limits of the playable in using this system for a game without ocmputer assistance. The computer Version of SFB, SFC (Star Fleet Command), used the computing power in part to make the time & space granularity much, much smaller than SFB's; close enough that SFC plays as if it were a true continuous-simultaneous game. [By definition, no game can manage to be perfectly continuous-simultaneous, since this would require infinite resolution. however, by using calculus, you can approximate the results very well. 8) ]

[Edited thrice because the UBB kept on buggering up my nice neat chart.]

[This message has been edited by James Sterrett (edited 30 November 2000).]

[This message has been edited by James Sterrett (edited 30 November 2000).]

[This message has been edited by James Sterrett (edited 30 November 2000).]

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

WendellM, explain impulse movement please.

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

If you use the CODE tag, it'll keep charts like that nicely formatted:

This is a good idea, IMO. (The impulse system, I mean, not the formatting! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif) I used to play Star Fleet Battles and the system worked quite nicely. With the computer to handle the impulse, it should flow quite smoothly.

EDIT: And if you do use UBB tags, don't do what I just did and mispell them. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...s/rolleyes.gif

[This message has been edited by Psitticine (edited 01 December 2000).]

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>WendellM, explain impulse movement please.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would, but James has already done a nice job (my thanks to a fellow SFB-er http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif).

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

I agree, James did do a bang up job of it. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif I also agree it sounds like a good system to use.

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

Thanks for the formatting tip - I obviously need to spend more time with help files and less with rulebooks. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Glad you guys found the post useful. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif