Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">no, that's how it is supposed to work, they can only move together, not attack, they would have to be in the same fleet then.

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">He makes it sound more complicated than it really is by delving into the details of how he thinks it should be implemented. In essence, the 'impulse' system means each turn is broken down into many smaller sub-turns. And if you have things like weapon recharge crossing turn boundaries then it's not even that -- it's breaking combat down into thousands of tiny turns. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif That's it. We just need 'smaller resolution' of turns so it's not possible for someone to do too much in a single turn. That's the essence of the 'I go - you go' balance problem.

I agree that firing arcs for weapons, shield facings (essentially inseperable from weapon firing arcs, when you think about it), turning rates, and maneuvering rules are all essential to a good tactical combat system. With initiative advantages for smaller ships we'd finally have a good 'balance' that would make smaller ships worthwhile into the late game.

The fancy graphical options would be nice, but would make it vastly harder for third-party add-on shipsets to be created. I think it would be better to just have more than one image per size class, and keep the graphic formats as simple as possible.

[ August 19, 2002, 20:32: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, if you shift-click multiple ships and/or fleets, and tell them to move to an enemy location (and thus attack), all will enter the sector at the same time. This will not happen when a turn has passed since the orders were given, the grouping only Lasts for one turn.

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

if they make a phong stuffed animal....

that has voices......

I would say rodney dangerfield needs to dot he voice on that.

As for the Eee... hmmm... Gilbert Godfrey (sp on that)

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

I am a BIG fan of stratgy games.SE4 and EFS are 2 of my favs despite having rather lack luster graphics.
Rebellion and BoF were good also but nowhere near as good as the 2 first mentioned.Gameplay over graphics is where I stand.If I can have them both, fine.But if not, GIVE ME GAMEPLAY.Thank you.

Now the one place that both these games(se4,EFS) fall short IMHO is lack of good ground combat.I would pay good money for another Version of either of these games in which absoulutely nothing was changed BUT the ground combat.

If either game would incorporate ground combat in a form like that of the close combat series I'd be a REAL happy puppy.
I'd even settle for a steel panthers type of ground combat.
As far as I'm concerned this is the only big thing both SE4 and EFS really fell short on.
Also make the ground combat control optional,so if you dont want to control it you can let the AI do it(shudder,shiver,etc..Oh the horror.Just look at the bodies)

The one thing you must NEVER do however is turn the SE:series into a clickfest like the wardaft series or the many other no IQ reguired clickfests for 12 year olds games flooding the market.

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

BB and Baron M.,
Thanks for the reply. Maybe I was wrong in my assumption. But my resentiments comes from my experience with an another impulse system. I can remember of a role playing game in Larry Nivens "Ringworld". It used the BRP System of Chaosium. The only difference to another BRP-Versions (like Runequest or Call of Chtulhu) was the usage of combat-impulses as you described.
As long as there has been just a few combatants the system worked very well. But if the battle was bigger, it was a real horror to keep oversight of who did what and when. So I think an impulse system could be fine, but just if you have a few ships (or fleet formations without the option to split them down to single ships).

BTW: GDW`s "Invasion Earth" was a great game. I liked it too (also 5th frontier war and Imperium/dark nebula - from the series) But again I think to implement a similar system for SE5 would be too complex. Just imagine how long an invasion earth like combat would Last. And then multiply it with the amount of invasions one strategic turn in SE4 could theoretically have.

Simple Manoevring rules could be:
turning 90 Degree: a ship has to travel at least one square before turning 90 degree. If a ship has advanced manoevre it can turn without traveling one square. If a ship has a certain size and is not very manoevrable it has to travel at least X squares before turning. thats it.

"The fancy graphical options would be nice, but would make it vastly harder for third-party add-on shipsets to be created."

Are you sure? why? A ship designer has only the option to make bigger ships (he has not to, because dreadnoughts could also occupy just one square as it is in SE4) and to pre-define the squares they occupy during the design - but with the same graphical quality as now.

bye
klausD

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

RE: Impulses

One small thing: Make sure it's "fire, then move" instead of "move, then fire". Otherwise, static defences, especially at Warppoints, would be at a serious disadvantage...

Also, couldn't this be (kinda) modded in? Change the # of combat turns to, say, 300, and multiply the reload rates by 10. But not the movement; you'd probably want to DECREASE the combat movement generated by normal engines. Of coarse, this would need a lot of balancing, but it's kinda what you want. Sorta. Maybe? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I plan to include a "perk"-level Racial Technology trait, "Megascalar Construction" that will give the race extra ship hulls, on the large end.

And another, "Microscalar Engineering" that will enhance smaller hulls -- mainly fighters and hte like, but will also add a ~50kT mini-ship type hull.

Not -exactly- what you had in mind, but ... 8).

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well... that's exactly what he described. See also Pireates & Nomad's mod, with the "Big thinkers" trait. This feature is entirely moddable in SEIV.

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

In response to earlier discussions here, I'm glad there;s a SEIV future and a SEV and spinoffs. I'm not big on combat that's 3D or graphics that take advantage of 3d, but a galactic map thats 3D would add quite a bit of "expansion" (and fun hopefully) to overall strategy and movement and empire layout, I believe, in a strategy game like this w/o too much micromanagement overkill.

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">With the computer keeping track, it would be pretty simple. Like I wrote, every impulses movement phase the units you could move that impulse would be highlighted, ever impulses fire phase the units which could fire that impulse would be highlighted. Just click any highlighted one and give it an order, click "end orders" when you've done all the ones you want to do.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, I would probably limit the number of tactical turns in a ground combat, as SEIV does now with a space combat, except just have the battle carry over into the next turn. I forget the time scale of Invasion Earth, but I'm pretty sure the whole game took several months of in-game time. Also, that was an invasion by a major race of a major race's homeworld. The typical invasion would be smaller. IE is the general idea of what I'd like to see ideally, though. 5th Frontier War would also be an interesting basic concept if you don't want to deal with planetary maps. Either way, my ideal would be for units to be designed in a simplified form of what is used in scenario creation for Norm Kroger's OPART series and the "equipments" assigned to the units being what you design like "troops" in SEIV.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Ever play Starfire or Starfleet Battles? Starfire was originally designed by the same guy that did Starfleet Battles as a simplified system (as compared to SFB) in which battles could be fought with fairly large fleets and you could design your own ships. The SE series was heavily influenced on Starfire (more obvious in SEIII than SEIV, though). The concept you describe was in both as "turn modes". A ship's turn mode is how many hexes (or squares in SEIV) it has to travel in a straight line befoure it can turn by 1 hex side. In SFB a ship has a speed at any given time which determines the column it uses on the impulse chart (in which every impulse has a row that tells you whether a ship moving that speed moves that impulse) and it's turn mode varies according ots speed, with smaller/more manueverable ships have a smaller turn mode than big ones at any given speed. SF simplified this by having every ship move its max speed but able to "move" during an impulse by expending a movement point in place (which counts toward its turn mode), and giving each ship the same turn mode at all speeds. Bigger ships also have bigger turn modes in SF, but "Advanced Manuevering" can reduce it by 1. SF did not really use the same sort of impulse system as SFB, but was readily adaptable to do so.

As an aside, turn modes would not work so well with a square grid. They'd really need to go hexagonal.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The fact that you can't stack ships in SEIV is a simplification. In SF you could. The point is that one square on the tactical map is still a whole lot of space. No ship really "fills" the square it occuppies, much less hangs over into multiple squares. Not even stars and gas giants overflow their square.

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm not sure I see the disadvantage of static defenders in "move, then fire", given that the attackers, IF they happened to have the fastest speed in the game, would at most be able to move 1 hex/square before the fire phase of that impulse. I'm not talking about going through all the movement impulses of a turn before anybody fires, but rather each impulse having separate move & fire phases. Not being able to move in an impulse would not preclude firing. Only not having your weapons charged would do that, which on the first impulse of the first turn of the batle would not be a problem (unless some sort of surprise rule were added - a separate topic).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Interesting idea, but I don't think it would work. The impulse concept requires that some impulses a ship can't move and others it can (but only 1 hex/square). To take a simplified example, let's say our max game speed is 6, so we have 6 impulses. We have four ships: #1 moves at speed 6, #2 moves at speed 3, #3 moves at speed 2, #4 moves at speed 1:

Impluse#1: Ship #1 moves
Impulse#2: Ships #1 & #2 move
Impulse#3: Ships #1 & #3 move
Impulse#4: Ships #1 and #2 move
Impulse#5: Ship #1 moves
Impulse#6: Ships #1, #2, #3 & #4 move

Any of them could fire on any impulse, whether or not it can move, if it has a charged weapon. A weapon that fires every turn would take 5 impulses to charge - if you fire it on impulse #3, it could not fire again until impulse #3 of the next turn.

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

One thing that i like to see, is a weapons system like the one used in Starships Unlimited, Missiles use ammo and PPB / shields use energy.
For energy you need engines and reactors.
Also the arcs of fire like in the MOO2.
Other thing that i want to see is ships sizes can be race specific, ex. a mechanics race can build bigger ships than a spiritual one.

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

Wow! I've been gone from the board for like 3 or 4 months and look at all the new speculation that is occuring. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Hey guys, lets not jump the gun here on 3D graphics for a stand alone SE game, or a combat system for SE5 (if their ever is a SE5). I've dabled a little bit with programming and know a few people that deal with 3D graphics. Programming a 3D engine for any game is not an easy endeveour! I'm not saying Aaron can not do it, but it could be a very long time before we even see any mention of a 3D space combat game (let alone a 3D style SE5).

Just building the 3D engine alone is fairly complicated and tough for one guy to do. Also, speaking of 3D graphics, compatability issues are a big concern here too. Oh, you could make a 3D game engine and program all the bleeps and whistles and runs great for the system it is created on, but having it compatible with other systems graphics cards and systems is a very daunting task, even with great programming skills of MM. Do any of you have any idea of how many 3D graphics cards companies their are out their??? Like Diamand, GeForce, RIVA, or Voodoo cards and their variants. And what about all those integrated cards they have on computer systems these days? These are just a fraction of the hardware available.

Also, that might bring another point. I've read on countless occasions that many people that play Space Empires like playing the game not only because of the game play, but also its not too hefty on system requirements. I'm so sick and tired of game companies making games every six months that literly force you to buy a system even few months just too keep up with the new games system requirments. I don't know about any of you, but I don't have money to burn just for a Computer game. That was the beauty of SE3 and SE4, it was very adatable to the Windows operating system and didn't require a hefty CPU to run it. Once you go 3D graphics, you got to realize you are playing a whole new ball game.

Hey, this would be awsome if MM could design a 3D space combat game, and I would definitly buy it because I love Space Empires, but I'm definitly not holding my breath. Who knows how long it would take to develop the game. SE4 took nearly 3 years to develope. Although Aaron does have a little more resources to work with now, I would not be suprised if it too maybe twice as long as SE4. Just my opinion on this.

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

BB: Hmmm. On the "Fire, then move thing": Ok, I see what you mean now. I must not have been thinking clearly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Now, the only hard-code change (that I can see) you need for your "impulse system" is to have engines that can give fractional moves/combat turn. You'd need an engine that gave you, say, 1 move every 6 turns, (and 2 engines gave 2 per 6 turns, etc). Then you could just mod the game to work like you've proposed.

Or am I missing something else now....

EDIT: Actually, all components that generate only 1 "somethings" per combat turn would need to be modded for fractional generation/turn, not just engines. Shield Regenerators, for example.

EDIT AGAIN: umm actually, that second engine should make it 1 move every 3 turns, huh?

[ August 21, 2002, 14:34: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, yes, as you say, if MM just did the coding so that you could assign things fractional combat-turn frequencies it would be pretty close. Assuming changing the "Number Of Space Combat Turns" in settings.txt actually does anything (I never tried it).

It would also be better if the combat speed of a ship was not 1/2 the strategic speed, so the "finer gradations" of speed would count for something in battle. Of course, if the implementation was via giving engines a separate ability for combat speed and strategic speed, with fractional abilities allowed in combat speeds, that would do it. Except not halving the combat speed would effectively cut the combat map area to 1/4 of present. Unless we also got a retreat rule I would not like that - too easy for slower ships to "corner" faster ones that don't want to fight. So, idealy the size of the combat map would go up or become moddable.

In combat today, the fastest thing is combat speed 10 (a fighter with 9 Small Quantum Engines, an Afterburner III and the Propulsion Experts racial trait). That says 10 impulses would work, meaning 300 "impulse" turns per battle and we'd need fractional combat movement points & recharge rates in 0.1 increments. That is actually pretty clean - no need to mess with the map, just the ability to specify combat speed generation separately from strategic for everything (engines, components that give movement bonuses, vehicle hulls that give movement bonuses, the Propulsion Experts racial trait bonus) and have it accept values in 0.1 increments. This could probably be done in a patch. Then the mod would just divide everything by 10 except the "Number Of Space Combat Turns", which it would multiply by 10, and we'd be off to the races.

However, without also highlighting which units can move/fire this turn it might a bit awkward to use. It also would not skip turns where nothing could move or fire. Those issues are potentially patchable, though. A simple box around the square of something that could move or fire would do - say red if it can fire, yellow if it can move, orange if it can do both. Lack of any boxes showing would cue you to click "end turn". It doesn't get to simultaneous fire resolution, either, so the first guy to move in range still gets an advantage.

If, aside from afterburners which only work in combat, we wanted strategic & combat speeds to be the same then the maximum combat speed would be 19, the map needs to be doubled in every dimension just to hold our ground on the "cornering" issue, and the numbers don't work out so neat. Probably too messy for a patch, but for SEV:)

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

OK, BB, now my head hurts. Cut that out! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Seriously, why would you want reload rates in fractions? You'd want reload rates in multiples. After all, if there are 10 impulses in what now constitutes a turn, a CSM has a 30 impulse reload rate. APB has a reload rate of 10 impulses. Surely you don't want to have anything with a reload rate of 1 impulse!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif (can you say, "uber-weapon"? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">With a turn-length of 10 impulses, you might want a low-damage PDC with a reload cycle of 2 impulses (5 shots per turn), to represent a fast-firing, ultra-low-caliber defensive weapon. Or halve it's damage and give it a reload cycle of 1 impulse. Bang away every impulse, for piddling damage. Would be nice in that, for low to-hit situations, at least SOME of your PDC would hit every turn,a nd eventually ... it'd rack up some damage, which is better than none, on every impulse.

AND ... that'd make Fighters with Emissive Armor more interesting; if those 1-per-impulse PDC did 5 damage each, then, Small EmAr III would become -very- useful. Yet the PDC, even if it hit a non-EmAr target, would only do 50 damage over the whole turn, so it'd not be ludicrously overpowered IMO. Especially if much-shorter-range than normal PDC.

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Or maybe some other colours completely, since some ppl have troubling distinguishing between those three...

Chromatic nitpick aside... you wouldn't have to have fractional shield regeneration. If the minimum of 1 shield point regenerated per impulse is still too high, just multiply all shield, weapon & damage Ratings up by a common factor (say 10) and then recalculate the number of impulses needed for regenerators.

In other words, the minimum of 10 shield points regeneration per turn wouldn't be a big deal, if a shield generator I produced 500 points and a DUC I did 150 damage.

Re: The Future for SE IV? Does it have one?
 

What's the big deal about the minimum regen rate?

Just have a 5 point/turn regenerator provide one point every other impulse.
Or, equivalently have a reload rate for regenerators.