Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

<Jaw drops>

He was talking about BG? *The* greatest CRPG I've seen yet?! The one that -- if it were not for Final Fantasy -- would be *the* greatest RPG ever? (BG2, right? Not 1?)

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Dear KlausD,

Please take heed the words of the people with very high post counts. They know what they're talking about.
You've been registered since late 2001, so you should well know who you're talking to. Imperator Fyron, Mephisto and Suicide Junky are moderators of this great forum. It's not they're saints or something, but they do have lots and lots of experience and knowledge. Almost everything they say is worthwhile. They're not going to give you bad info. Just wait untill the demo arrives and then start screaming.
Untill then this discussion is over in my opinion (like in almost everyones opinion). This subject has been beaten to death too many times.
Now be on your merry way please.

I hope I didn't sound too harsh.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Was it really needed to restart a several day old discussion just to post that? Intended or not its sort of insulting.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

I concur. Let it rest in peace at least until the demo is out...

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

RIP:

Rest in Pieces

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Woops, my mistake. Sorry. What's the punishment?
I didn't take note of the dates. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Space Empires is so much better than MOOIII.

There. In one breath.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

I haven't done all of BG1, but BG2 is perhaps one of the top 25 games of all time. Depends on which FF you're talking about.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Dismemberment!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Homeworld!

Was just playing that ealier today actually.

Any way Malfador can buy the rights to that came and simply cut and paste its game engine in as SEVI's tactical combat component? Obvioulsy they would mod out the construction/resourse collection part. That would be so sweet.

3-D looks
 

So,

I was thinking that a good thing to have in the game would be a way model your own ships. Go ahead and have a base shipset, but then add a few dozen generic 3-D "legos" that you can add onto the stock ships to make classes within the same size group unique. One of the things about MOOII I loved was that there were several models for each size, so my various battleship designs did not all look the same.

.....
 

Hopefully, it would be possible to create ships and mecha like SDF-1(transforming battleship of Robotech fame) and the like...actually, that brings up a question/idea: Would it be possible for...say, a fighter to transform into a battle armor, or a battle ship to switch from "navigation" mode to "battle" mode?(Aka, going from fast-weak ship to slow-strong ship)

I figured I would ask...I mean, it might seem silly but I am a big fan of anime, Gundam, Robotech, and the fantastic.

Re: .....
 

That would have to involve losing engines and gaining weapons, or some wacky thing like that, would it not?

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

I was concerned a good while ago about this awesome game series going to a RTS hybrid too. Let's face it, there are a ton of other RTS games out there... What I liked about the SE series is the fact that it still was a turn-based game. Very few these days, and none anywhere near as mod-able or good.
In fact, I was so concerned, I e-mailed support at Shrapnel, and Aaron himself e-mailed me back with a line asking "What's wrong with RTS?" So, I told him.

Hoping this game and series doesn't fly the way of MOO.
From what I see it looks good, and seems as deep, with the controls needed to be a TBG-hybrid. I'll wait until I see some solid reviews from those who like TBG's before buying...
-ZtG

Re: .....
 

Hrm...maybe a system of "Active" and "Inactive" components would be involved. I imagine that this can actually play a role for non-transforming ships and such, too...like a battleship making a long-range trip, needs fuel supplies and disables it's weapons and battle shields in supposedly friendly territory. It makes good distance, and suddenly a cloaked enemy ship ambushes it, causing great damage and such due to the weapons and shields being "Inactive".

The ship survives, and doesn't have much fuel, and poor hull integrity...it uses the fuel pods, and disables all non-critical functions, and enables "boosters" to increase it's warp speed/impulse power or the like to run to the nearest space dock as quickly as possible...

Yes, I guess it is somewhat crazy, heh.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

SE5 is in no way a RTS.

Think of it as combat being processed one turn per millisecond, and direct fire weapons now take multiple turns to reach their targets.
If you choose single player, sequential turn, AND tactical combat, then you provide/update your orders every 1000 combat "turns" or so.

In any other case, the computer is calling the shots according to your given strategies, and everybody is happy.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Heck...Space Empires 3 is so much better than MOO3...

Kana

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Anime transformer ships? Hmm, how about anime battleships that transform into giant floating monkey heads with disembodied fists that punch at you and you have to hit them when the fists open up... and then once you destroy both hands the monkey inside says "Uncle Andross!" and blows up, and then the big surprise - that wasn't the end of the level, you still have to fight this giant bug thingy which shoots deadly radar beams out of its wings and sucks up rocks from the ground and flings them at you...

Darn it, I've been playing too much Starfox: Assault lately http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Ever realize how Nintendo games seem to borrow from one another, though? Like there was Andross with the hand thing, and then in Mario 64 there are these giant stone hands which you have to punch (yes, the only Mario game where you can punch!) them when they open up, and then back to Oikonny in Starfox: Assault... and Metroid Prime's grapple beam was controlled in the exact same way you use Link's grappling hook in The Wind Waker... not to mention all the bosses where you have to reflect their attacks back at them (Aghanim from A Link to the Past, Ganon's first appearance in The Wind Waker, and every Kirby boss known to man)... yet for some reason you have to kill BOwser a different way every time?

Oh yeah, SE5... can we have weapons with multiple fire modes, like Megaman's M-Buster? One mode where it's really weak but fires like a machine gun and another mode where it's really powerful but you have to wait for it to charge? Just have a variable "time since last shot" and factor that into the damage calculation... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

The weapon-charging idea might have merit...for example, charging a weapon takes extra supplies, and if overcharged beyond the component's ability to store it, it can cause damage? The same can go for shields and the like...

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

I just hope he gets it right. I've seen games where you give orders, then the AI's resolve it .... turn out really, really bad before. Nothing like cursing a really stupid UI and you don't have any options.

In general, I just hope that all the push towards fancy 3D and neat looking ships and RT combat don't take away from what I want in a strategy game. I want two things from combat in a strategy game. I want it to fit well with the rest of the strategy in the game, ie I want it to reflect and respond to the strategic choices in the game in a nice balanced way. I want it to support startegic choices, instead of driving everyone to one perfect weapon. And the second thing I want is reports/feedback from the combat that tells me what I need to know to make strategic choices in my turn. So if my fleet died because there wasn't enough Point Defense in the fleet, I want to know it. I don't want to be guessing about what happened or squinting at a screen trying to figure it out.

I don't care what the ships look like, and generally think the phrase "real-time" is the root of all evil.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

I was looking for info on the SEV and noticed the thread. Is the "real time" tactical going to be something like "Birth of the Federation"? It wasn't bad. I much prefer the SEIV turned base, but BOTF wasn't bad.

(If this has been brought up already my apologizes)

Bob

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Hello and welcome to the forums. This automated messaging service brought to you by World Conquest inc., a division of Emporer Narf's Grand Scheme.

In answer to your query, this has be brought up before. Stand by to be terminated. 10...9...8...7...6...5...4...3...2...1...0...GOTCH A! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

It'll have real-time combat, that's it. The rest turn-based.

And really, welcome to the forums. We're friendly here; I'm just (one of) the weird guy(s). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

LOL Thanks for the welcome, and not the termination. I hope its done right, but I did love SEIV's turn-base. I was obsessive about it. Using lighter faster ships against heavy battleships. That was fun.

Bob

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Don't worry about it. Nobody flames newbies here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

hell yeah, Birth of the Federation was one of the better Star Trek games made. If you want a taste of what SE5 migt be like go find it in a bargain heap. What happened in that game was when both the fleets were in the same sector they engaged in combat, in strategic mode they fought automatically, in tactical you were provided a list of options depending on the vessels present(charge, ram, harry, flank, strafe, ect). From there it was like a rock paper scissors, you tried to pick a maneuver that would let your guys flank and fire on the enemy, while evading their fire. Then you hit the exacute button, and the ships danced, damage was tallied and the survivors continued.

From IRC and rumors SEV will be like this, but with scripting your own maneuvers and the ability to give more specific commands.

And I just realized.... the best star trek games are very similar to malfador games.... Star Fury is like Star Fleet Command, SEIV/V like Birth of the federation..... There was a kick *** SNES game that played kinda like Dungeon odessy.....

*wonders if there will be Space Empires Acadamy, or Space Empires: Honor Guard/Elite Force*

*imagines piloting an Amonkrie Cruiser, running around with a DUC engaging in FPS Ground combat*

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

A bit off topic, I know, but I've seen a "Warp" button in the tactical interface in the combat screens. It's located in the bottom right somewhere.

Warping during Combat? I've got just one thing to say to that.....

RUN THE BLOCKADE!!!!!

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

There is a lot more you can get from charing weapons than just a little kickback for overcharing. Depending on how the weapons handles a charge it can provide some very interesting atvantages (and disatvantages). I'll try to go over some of the kinds of charing weapons, and what they mean:

Held-Charge Weapon: This is weapon that must be charged before use. Upon reaching a full charge it can be fired. This weapon is capable of holding the charge on the weapon until you are ready to fire it. This can be helpful in several ways, if a weapon has a high damage output with a charge time to compensate, you can start charging this weapon before you get to the target an be read unleash some major damage when you get there. A variation is the Degrading Held-Charge weapon in which a held charge degrades over time (lowering overall power of the shot), and cannot be re-charged until the charge reaches a certain point (most often 0).

Instant Charge Weapon: Any charged weapon that must use it's charge as soon as it is ready. This of course means a target must be avaible once the charge is done.

Fixed Fire Charge: This is any charged weapon that must aquire a target before it can begin it's firing cycle. This provides the oppurtunity for a target to slip out of firing range while the gun charges, making so they must hold charge longer (possibly degrading) if it's a held-charge weapon OR redering the shot useless if it's instant charge weapon. This can of course be offset by accuracy/damage scale of the weapon itself.

Gradual Charge Weapon: This is a weapon that can be fired at any point in it's charge up until the cap( if it has one). With damage going up the longer you store energy. It can of course addtionally be any one of the other types, Held, Instant or Fixed Fire.


Now these are just my own loose terms/definitions. I'm sure somebody out there has explained these concepts better than I have but I think it shows how charged weapons could make for more decisions on the battlfield.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

"Held-Charge" and "Instant Charge" weapons are already present as weapons with different firing rates.

How would you physically explain a "Fixed Fire Charge" weapon?

"Gradual Charge" weapons would be interesting, but probably impossible to get the AI to use effectively. In the hands of the AI, they would either always be weak rapid fire weapons or they would always be powerful, slow weapons.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

The name "Fixed fire charge" dosen't sound right.
"Delayed Fire" perhaps.

But the mechanics as described would apply to a missile weapon which must lock onto a target in range before it can fire.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Note nessicarly, in that they are different when the time you cannot fire occurs. With a weapon that has fixed fire rate it starts the battle ready to go, and then has to cool down. In the case of a weapon that has to charge first, it can be ready to fire in the case of battle across long distances. But in a case where say you are going through a warp point and start on top of your enemy you won't have chance to charge up first. This is the kind of disatvantage the the weapon that could justify them having higher attack power or accuracy.

Instant charge weapons I should explain are really meant to go as a sub-type to the fixed charge weapons. Once again imgaine you had a stard ready-fire weapon and an enemy ship comes in range. You begin to charge you big cannon X, but they move out of range your weapon fires instantly missing them.

I don't know you could throw in some junk about launching an some kind of anchoring signal at the point of the target that energy beam jumps to.

You could make something about the system being fragile and needing the weapon to lock into place before i can safely be fired, keeping it from tracking a target.

Any number of things that really invovle saying it requires complex information on the position of any enemy fancy calibrations and whatnot.


THe AI is pretty dumb anyway. I honestly can't say I care or feel sorry for them.

Well the fixed more refers to the where the weapon can hit more than anything. I've always been bad with names.

You are right it is very much like a missle. Only in that missles are seekers and after the lock and ready to fire peroid there is a chase peroid in which they can be ready to fire.The charge weapon that would hit at the moment of fire, so the "Chase" peroid would either be eliminated or change to the speed of the firing ship not the acutal seeker.




Once again, i'm afraid i wasn't very clear in explaining what i mean and those cheesy names didn't help much either. So instead I guess i'll just try to supply hypothetical situations for charging weapons to apply in.


"Big Charge Cannon A" is a weapon that must charge for 20 seconds before firing. Once charged it can hold it's charge until an apporiate target is found and fired upon.

I will be comparing it to

"Big Regular Cannon" it is a weapon that has 20 second cooldown betwen firings.


Now the first situation we will compare these in is a situation where both forces start on opposite sides of the battle field (conveintly enough 20 seconds travel time apart).

A Ship with "Big charge cannon A" begins to charge it weapon as ut moves.

THe two ships meet. And both of them are ready to fire. Even break. From that point on really the weapons will still be evenly matched.


Now in the next situation one player is going through a warp point. And meet with enemy forces on the other side. Now the ships armed with the regular cannon can open fire and cripple the enemy ships while the charging ships are still building up power. In fact by the time the charge ships are ready to unleash the first slavo, the regular cannon ships are to fire their second.



now this second weapon will be "Big Charge Cannon B".

It also has charge time of 20 seconds, but it cannot hold it's charge. It must fire immedtiarly after the charge is compeleted.

Once again the begin 20 seconds away on opposite sides of the battle field. However this time seeing that they are armed with chargign cannons and have begun to build them up the other side holds off. Wasting the first shot. Once they get in battle range, so long as the regular cannon ships are faster they can actually dart in out of range so as to get their shots in without ever getting hit (staying outside the fire window of the charged weapon).

This has some important implications. This means you could have devastatingly powerful charged cannon weapons that could decimate larger slower ships with sheer power. But small ships would be all but immune to the fire, the cannon could just never keep up with them. A regular cannon could just wait till they came in range, pull of it's instant shot and wait out the cooldown.

Now situation in which they start on top of eachother might give back some of the power to the charging weapon if it charges fast enough to prevent a dart-out form point blank range (as opposed to skimming the outer range of the weapon).


lastly "Big Cannon C" would be can cannont that locks on to a certain area and could fire in there. Now if it can't hold it's charge it's really just a more restriced version of "big cannon B". If it can hold it's charge it's basically marking a section of the battle field as death zone, it could be used to rescrict enemy movements (unless then want to get blasted). It works even better if the weapon in question has some kind of splash damage, if thats in SE5 that is.


You can even link charge time weapons to have a regular cooldown before they begin another charge.

Heck if really needed to make an even bigger difference, you could take a page from many RPGs and make charge cannons that need stability and slow down/stop charging when they take a hit/big enough hit.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Note that direct fire weapons will still have a time-to-target after being fired.

When two DUC ships attack, both with fire... and then shortly after, both will be hit and possibly both be destroyed.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

I suppose. I honeslty always saw beam weapons at least as instant or near-instant weapons.

I'm afraid i've hit a vocabulary barrier here. "DUC"?

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

I suppose. I honeslty always saw beam weapons at least as instant or near-instant weapons. To the point where dodging them would be out of the question.

I'm afraid i've hit a vocabulary barrier here. "DUC"?

[/quote]

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Depleted Uranium Cannon. Basically a mass-driver that uses DU as "bullets".

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Whether the beam or projectile, or whatever classical direct-fire weapon used will score a hit or a miss gets decided before the shot is animated.

Whether it hits or not depends on distance modifiers, ECM, combat sensors, hull bonuses, racial bonuses, culture bonuses, terrain modifiers, etc, plus the dice rolls.

All of the SE series has been this way.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Once again, i've communicated poorly. When I said doging. I mean moving out of range before it contacts. Basically what i'm talking about is moving out of sector before the weapon fires and all that is caclulated.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

For combat, you should base your stuff on Starfury.
Starfury combat involves no grids or sectors, but rather a 2D coordinate plane.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

While i've never seen star fury. I don't see why an aera of a set size can't sub-in for a sector. If ship leaves a certain area around the orginally targetted point, it'd have the same effect.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Missile dancing is generally a cheap tactic used against the AI in tactical combat.

If you could run in, fire, and then turn and run out of range before the enemy's projectiles reach you... that would be frustratingly annoying.

On the other hand, comparing stats and rolling the dice is tried and true. It has been used since the beginning, and it also means you don't have to worry about the fine details of manouevering in a 200-ship combat zone; only the overall strategies and formations matter.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

Well, I personally think it would be nice if at leas the option for charging weapons was put it even it wasn't part of the standard game. It provides benefits other than just the dancing thing, perhaps I probably focused on that point a bit too much. But I suppose I can understand that not everyone would like the I may be in the minority, when it comes to thinking that charging weapons might be interesting.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

The option for nifty weapon types with new reload/charging schemes would certainly be nice.

But given that the AI will be managing them, most of the really fancy stuff would be wasted.

Re: Realtime or turnbased tactical combat?
 

But doesn't all this charging weapons stuff basically only really boil down to rate of fire? The rate of fire of any said weapons is the time it take to either 'charge', or 'reload' before it can fire again.

Kana