|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
MUST agree with Karibu.
Strategy games work better without "Real Time" combat. |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
From what I understand, it's supposed to be fully pauseable combat with a fully scalable time rate. You could take as much time as you want to set up fleets and battle Groups, give orders, and assign targets. You then let the battle progress at whatever pace you wish, stopping or slowing it as necessary to alter your strategies or speeding it up to mop up the remainder of the resistance.
Of course, the strategy options will have to be fairly complex, magnitudes above even SE3 (let alone SE4) in both user interface and options. |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
except in multi player games.... I hope.... As i would not have the time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
I'm sorry, but I must agree with others. As much as I really like some of the features of Starfury, I'm really concerned about how combat works in the game.
I don't mind Real Time combat (Taldrens Starfleet Command Series is a proven example of good Real-time combat) but in Starfury, intra-system travel is Real time and this, in my opinion, sways away from the Turn Based system that Space Empires was built apon. I think adding Real time combat should be only added at the Tactical combat level, not Strategic. If you do that, their wouldn't be any way too play SE5 with E-mail (which some people still do). I would really like too see SE5 have Tactical combat use this new Real time combat, but Strategic Level play should remain Turn based. And I was hoping Starfury combat would have been similar too Homeworlds real time strategy. Homeworlds real time combat system is far easier too control Fleet actions then the one Starfury uses now. |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
PBEM has combat executed without player intervention. How it is resolved, whether turn based or real time, is IRRELEVANT! You would have no interaction ethier way. Go play the Dominins demo to see how real time combat in PBEM works. All combat is processed in "strategic mode," with no intervention at all while it is executing from the player(s). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I think you guys are completely misunderstanding the potential of real time combat. Games like Starcraft have left a very bad opinion of the words "real time" for many people... there is a LOT more to it than what you see in games like that. Ever play with an initiative and impulse system? Such turn based systems are attempts to make the combat more realistic by avoiding having all of one side fire everything and do everything before the other side gets to do anything. Such execution of combat is not very good. Real time combat is just making the initiative and impulse checks continuous. Done right, with the ability to pause, issue orders while paused, and arbitrarily alter the pacing, it will be AT ITS WORST far better than the very best turn based impulse and initiative system you can come up with. Comparing with games like Starcraft is absolutely asburd. Starcraft is not AT ALL IN ANY WAY a strategy game. It is at best a tactical click festing game. With proper real time combat, which Aaron has given every indication that he plans to implement, there will be no click festing whatsoever! In fact, it will be identical to a system in which you give everything orders, and then watch your side and the enemy's side execute those orders for a turn. But instead of fixed-length turns, you will be able to control the length of the turns. A simple ability to turn on a limited time to execute combat until it pauses again will help remove click-festing completely. As an example, have the game set to auto-pause after 20 seconds. So, you give orders, check orders, all that. Then you hit "unpause", and it carries out combat in real time for 20 seconds, and then pauses again automatically. Please tell me how this is in any way much different from a turn based combat system that uses more realistic simultaneous ordering systems? Comparing anything to how it was done in MOO3 is just silly. MOO3 failed in every respect, and all it is good for is an example of how not to do something. With a proper combat system, which can easily be implemented instead of a click-festing one, real time combat is every bit as strategic as turn-based combat. Also, SEV tactical combat will NOT be SF combat. It will be entirely different. Some parts of the SF code will be used, but not many, and mostly just rendering stuff, though scaled way down. [ February 07, 2004, 07:33: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
heh. real time real battles still manage to be strategetic.
|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
I think that taking account combat initiative like in MOO2 would be one good way to do it. There the highest initiative moves first no matter if it's the defender or attacker. In SEV initiative could be calculated using engine level, ship experience, fleet experience, cloacking, other bonuses (like shrines or such), racial attack- and defence bonus, etc. (if SEV is anything like SEIV).
Also another way would be like in Ufo Aftermath, where you issue orders to every individual of your group in paused mode, and then you put time running. When any ony of your unit has either done the task you gave it or it is interrupted some way, the time stops and you can then give new orders if necessary. However, in multiplayer games this kind of battles would require a hotseat game (players can see and talk to each other) to work battle properly and without time consuming waiting. I believe that there is propably other good ways to do real time combat, but I have yet to see them. Also voicing out my suspicion that SEV real time combat would be like in MOO3 or in Starcraft is justified because that same mistake has been made again and again by respectable game houses (like Microprose before, now Atari). only because it is easier than invent something working. Also I remember it all too well reading in MOO3 forums from right out the horses mouth one of the lead developers said:"We would not do real time combat if it would not be the right thing to do for this game". Also, they abandoned game after 2 patches and left it crippled, yet somehow playable. I don't say this is the situation in Malfador (actually I am pleasantly surprised how well SEIV is supported), but hearing of real time combat in strategy games cause me stomach ache. Karibu has spoken. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Space Empires V needs to have a real-time combat system where all the ships are moving at the same time.
The game for certain MUST remain turn-based - but using real time combat in place of the current strategic combat will solve all sorts of player's pet peeves re: iniative, who gets first shot etc, and will go a long way to evening out combat. Of course, the ship strategies must work very well to maximize this system so I think a lot of work will need to be done in this area. Like Fyron suggested, solo game "tactical combat" could be paused to issue additional orders (like target priorities, withdrawl, etc) and then unpaused. I don't imagine it turning into a clickfest as long as the strategies work well and require minimal user input. It will also help resolve tactical much faster as well. You cannot compare Star Fury to combat in SE:V, because Star Fury focuses on a single ship and requires a lot more direct user input and so is more clicky by nature. i.e. Fire weapons bank 1 at ship X and then weapons 2 at ship Y, switching targets etc. Tactical combat in SE:V would be more of setting target priorities (nearest, most damaged,etc), holding formations, and things of that sort. |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[ February 09, 2004, 16:23: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> Okay, I may be wrong in this. I remembered that MOO1&2 were made by Microprose. Also I know that Quicksilver made MOO3, but Atari bought Quicksilver and cut all support from MOO3. Who knows, perhaps they had some revolutionary idea but it never saw daylight because of this. I assumed that Microprose had become into Quicksilver. Perhaps it just bought rights from Simtex. Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"> I didin't say it wasn't perfect. Only that it is best of current ways to simulate real time combat when you take into account playability in multiplayer. I still stand behind this. Real time is ideal if you just find the way to control it without it getting into clicking feast. Please, tell us if you know one. Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.