|
Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Just an idea I had... what if instead of just researching Propulsion and getting faster and faster engines, your engines were split into multiple families (i.e. Retro Rockets, Ion Thrusters, Solar Sails, and Jump Drives), and you could only have one of each engine type on each ship? So if you want a really fast ship you'll have to use one of each and let each of their cost/supply/tonnage/etc. advantages and disadvantages average out, but if you want the specific benefits of one type, you'll have to settle for a slower ship overall? To make things interesting, engines would use mQNP-style scale mounts, just so that all ships don't end up the same speed, which would be boring. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
Any thoughts? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
An excellent idea.
|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
What would you propose the specific abilities of each type of engine to be?
|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Great Idea!! I would do like something like this:
1.Retro Rockets: Fastest engines, usable in combat only, heavy use of supplies, takes lot of space. Later technologies increase minimization and decrease supply usage. 2.Ion Thrusters: Fastest system engines, low use of supplies when moving slowly, heavy use when moving fast (movement could be done so, that turn's first movement square takes ie. 10 supplies/engine, second movement point takes 20, third take 40, fourth takes 80, etc.) and later models would increase the efficiency. Takes little space. Generates 1 movement point in combat. 3.Solar Sails: No use of supplies, generates extra movement points like now. Needs sun to work (ie. doesn't help movement in nebulas, black holes, asteroid systems, etc.), takes little space. Does not generate movement points in combat. 4.Jump Drives: Heavy use of supplies, works only in warp points. Takes a lot of space, later technologies increase minimization and decrease supply usage. Does not generate movement points in combat. Of course, this is just a thought and needs some refinement to be good. However, this would make it possible to make actually 2 class of ships: System ships and Star ships. Star ships would only take one retro engine (because of the space it takes) and move like 1 movement point in combat, when system ships would have no warp engines and would move fast in combat. Something like MOO3, but better http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif This idea starts to fascinate me more and more http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif [ February 02, 2004, 05:48: Message edited by: Karibu ] |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Jump gates ? allowing planet to planet immediate transport.
|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Jump gates could also be nice addition. Of course, they would require one building on a planet and it should be quite expensive to build. Not as much as system shield, but near. It could allow transporting cargo (not population?) like troops, wp's, mines, satellites, fighters and such.
Actually it would provide some defence for small player against a big one. To transport all your defence fighters and platforsm into attacked planet. |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Well, I just made up those names as placeholders; there's not much you can do outside varying the resource cost, tonnage, research cost, supply usage, and speed of the various engines. You can't, for example, make some engines only work for traversing warp points. I just wanted names that sounded different enough that you wouldn't wonder "why can I install an ion engine and an antimatter engine on a ship but not two ion engines? they both function basically the same way" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Also to create more interesting tech names than "Ion Propulsion", "Antimatter Propulsion", "Photon Propulsion", and "Quantum Propulsion" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Perhaps names more along the lines of:
"Ion injectors" (smaller size) "Secondary Accelerators" (bonus movement) "Thrust Baffles" (reduced supply use) "Vectoring Actuators" (combat movement) [ February 03, 2004, 01:19: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ] |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
But these kind of engines would create interesting palying tactics and extremely vast models of ships (not only different names, but different types totally) unlike today. Has anyone tried to mod a game like this? Is it actually possible?
I could think that code change for solar collectors would not be very difficult. Basically something like this and the code would be executed at the beginning of every sector when moving (ie. you are in nebula system, you get no bonus movement but if you warp through warp point, you get bonus movement at the other side if there is a sun): If amount(suns in system) = 0 then ship.movement.bonus = 0 else if ship.equipment.solarpanel.level = 1 then ship.movement.solarpanel.bonus = 1 end if if ship.equipment.solarpanel.level = 2 then ship.movement.solarpanel.bonus = 2 end if if ship.equipment.solarpanel.level = 3 then ship.movement.solarpanel.bonus = 3 end if end if |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
The problem is, we don't have any sort of scripting language to do that with, just the static data files. There IS no way to put an "if" statement in the data files. That's why I've been bugging Aaron to put scripting and/or plugins into SE5 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
(btw, no offense intended but you might want to brush up on your programming... wouldn't If amount(suns in system) = 0 then ship.movement.bonus = 0 else ship.movement.solarpanel.bonus = ship.equipment.solarpanel.level end if be easier? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ) |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Quote:
ship.movement.solarpanel.bonus = Iif(amount(suns in system) > 0, ship.equipment.solarpanel.level, 0) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Plug ins for SE5 yeah sounds like a good idea - wonder if they will keep the SEIV patches coming though ?
|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Probably not. The plans have been to make one final SE4 patch, then work full steam on SE5.
|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
well, starfury is an early look at the combat system.
|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
I could have done my pseudo code a shorter one, but not all lurkers are code makers and I wanted to make it easily understandable using simple IF statements.
Does anyone have any knowledge what are the main differences in SEV compared to SEIV (Fyron, Geoschmo, anyone)? |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
SEV is still under wraps. As far as I know, all that has been done is a bit of groudnwork and interface work.
|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Just want too ask a question about this suject.
I think this is a neat idea, and if I have time, I may experiment with it in my game. But I must ask, wouldnt this be rather hard too code into the AI races? |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Quote:
|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Are you serious? SEV combat system like Starfury? I have tried Starfury flight in demo (not combat however) and if Starfury combat is anything like flying one ship in it, I watch with amazed disbelief that have they not learned anything from other "real time strategy experiments" like MOO3; Dune, Battle for Emperor; Starcraft, etc. Is it going to be one more clicking feast? Please, please tell me I'm wrong...
With current interface to communicate with computer (keyboard and mouse) there is no good way to create any system to control fleets, squads, individual troops and such in real time. We would need a direct braincable to handle all the thingies with sufficient efficiency. Therefore: NO real time combat on STRATEGY games. |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
homeworld.
|
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:
|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Quote:
Quote:
Multiplayer has combat executed strategically without player intervention (PBEM), so what does it matter how it is executed in multiplayer, as long as it makes sense and it works? For hotseat you can have it forcibly do the auto-pause after X seconds method, and give each player the chance to revise/issue orders, just as if they were doing single player. It would still work great with real time combat. You would have to have the players agree to how long combat is executed before the "pausing phase", either at game setup or for each combat. Having both modes possible when you create a game (pick which one will be in effect the entire game) would be the optimal solution. Now if a proper TCP/IP mode is introduced for SEV, you can use the auto pause after X seconds feature exactly the same way as in hotseat. No clickfesting is involved in any mode, at all, unless all parties involved choose to play without the auto-pause after X seconds feature and introduce clickfesting. |
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Just had a thought: make it take a few "seconds" (not real secondds, but whatever time measure is used by the real time engine) to charge up weapons at the beginning of combat, so you can't fire in the first 3 "seconds" or whatever. Then, ships defending a warp point could start with their weapons already charged, so you get to ambush people coming through! This would be just as it works now for warp point, where defenders get to go first. But with simultaneous real time exectution, noone gets to "move first." For other battles, the 3 "second" delay will be passed long before ships engage each other.
|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Wouldn't someone who's attacking a warp point and expecting an ambush have his weapons charged as well? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
|
Re: Unusual New Propulsion Idea
Sometimes... but they would not know where the enemy is going to be, whereas the defender knows exactly where the attacker will be coming from. It is an abstraction, really. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:48 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.