Combat Initiative...
 

Does anyone know exactly how the game determines who goes first in a combat? I'm beginning to think that it just goes in 'Turn Order' and I CERTAINLY hope that isnt the case. In any case, the players always seem to go before the AI and that is not only silly, but really hurts the AI.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you always go first, that you have a HUGE advantage in 'Warp Point' combats especially if you have missiles. Shoot and scoot. If you have DF weapons, well, you can often decimate an enemy fleet before they even get up to bat!

Personally, I'd like to see an initiative system similar to what they eventually implemented in MOO2 with smaller/faster ships and ships with better computers (maybe use the MultiPlex+Sensor+ECM level combined?) going first and then resolving on an individual ship basis. Adjust for crew quality etc if necessary.

Barring that as too complicated, AT LEAST please consider a 'standard' of attacker or defender always goes first. FWIW, I prefer having the attacker going first to reward taking the offensive. It encourages people to be the aggressor and I think that is extremely necessary.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this or have noticed the initiative NOT always going to the player (and first player in MP combat)?

Thanx,
Talenn

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

yea, I agree with you

I also think that it would be better if instead of current tactical model - 1 side moves all ships, then the other side moves all ships, we had something different. Wouldn't it be better if combat followed the chess model? which is 1 ship moves at a time. That would distribute the initiative advantage fairly.

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

Well, I agree with you on this 100%. I also liked that initiative in MOO2, which was based on the speed of the ship. It would make much difference in combat vs. AI and if this could be implemented, and would make game much more interesting (it worked for MOO2).
I just wonder if Beta-Testers made such suggestion to MM.

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

Personally, I think the tactical combat is the weakest and most tedious part of SE4. The interface is kind of clunky though I may grow more used to it in time. I agree with the initiative comments here and also wish they would allow ships to retreat in a fashion similar to MOO2. Having fleeing ships trapped and bouncing around the edges of the tactical screen is just plain silly and detracts from the overall experience. What the heck does this supposed to simulate? How is bouncing into the edge of the screen tactical in nature?

The two opposing forces also seem to start the combat quite a distance apart and spending 4 or 5 turns moving a bunch of ships close enough to engage is tedious at best. One reasonable suggestion is that they could let the attacker or the race that has the combat initiative decide at the beginning of tactical combat if they want to start the engagement at long, medium or close range. That would allow some strategic advantage for forces that have the initiative and simulate forces being able to pick and chose the ground (or space in this case) on which they fight. I think this would add a really tense element to combat and allow the initiator, in some cases,(particularly the AI) to overcome some of the shoot and scoot tactics that are often employed. This would also at least allow some choice if you wanted to get in closer and into it right away.

Overall, I see tactical combat as one particular area where the developer could make some much needed improvements to smooth the interface, reduce tedium and increase the fun factor in this really excellent game. As it is, I find myself using the Strategic Combat option far more than I'd like to or ever thought I would given that I always really liked doing the tactical combat in MOO and MOO2.

Oh, another thing they might do to improve tactical play is allow you to switch to strategic combat in the middle of tactical combat if it is just taking forever to resolve. That should be easy to do since the software routines are already there for it. It would basically just involve adding another option tab to the tactical combat screen and switching the combat variables to the appropriate subroutine. As it is now, once your into tactical combat, you're in for the (often very long) duration.

Does anyone feel that I'm way off base here? I'd welcome other's perspectives on this topic.

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

One thing you can do in the middle of a tactical battle if it has gone on too long is to speed up the animations and then use the order menu to resolve combat. Its not quite strategic combat but it is much quicker than tactical. And it has the benifit of not needing your hands on the keyboard so you can do something else for the few minutes remaning of the combat. The only drawback to this is the same as strategic if something goes wrong there is no way back to tactical combat so once you change to resolve combat you are commited. Remember to speed up the animation before you hit the resolve button or it may take a while.

Another thing to speed up those first few turns if you have a strategy for your fleet you like you can hit auto move and end turn then repeat end turn as needed and the computer will make those first few moves to get you in position. Then you can take over to do the fight.

[This message has been edited by Tomgs (edited 31 December 2000).]

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

ColdSteel:

The 'Retreat issue' has been discussed many times around here and there are good reasons for both sides. Personally I think it works better within the framework of the game right now to not allow retreats. It is impossible to fight a decisive battle if the enemy can always just choose to retreat. IMO, the game would become 'whack-a-mole' trying to jump on fleet after fleet that slips through and into your backfield...not something I want to mess with...

So, while not having the ability to retreat may seem silly, IMO is it necessary given the constraints of the game. It would need a major overhaul of the way ships move tactically (and strategically) to make it work well IMO. FWIW, I cant see why it cant be included as an option at game start. That way people can choose what they want, but I guess at this point they deem it as not worth the coding it would take...an opinion I agree with. After a few games using retreats (at least vs human players), I'm pretty sure most people would be turning it back off again.

As far as the ranges of engagement go...yes, its pretty far, but again, I think its somewhat necessary. MOO2's tactical combat kind of fell apart because the starting ranges were too close. The only weapons that really mattered were direct fire as you didnt have enough time to get missiles and fighters into the battle before you were in gun range and decimated. The longer ranges allows for more variety in spliting into Groups and whatnot. MOO2 combat was basically just 'move forward and shoot till one side loses' There just wasnt enough room for maneuver IMO.

I agree that the tactical combat interface could be cleaner...the ability to SCROLL THE MAP would be a big help. A number of other tweaks could be made, but nothing is fatal in the tactical screen IMO.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with the tactical combat other than the 'missile dance' and the limitations on initiative as outlined below.

Thanx for the input http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
Talenn

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

Talenn,

You make some excellent points. I suppose one major difference between SE4 and MOO2 tactical combat is the 30 turn limit on tactical combat sessions in SE4. In effect I suppose this in itself acts as a form of retreat if you can just Last that long. So, I agree that if the game is balanced for this, it's not a big deal to me. Really, it is more a suspension of belief thing. Maybe they can find a way to depict this inability to leave combat a little better than it is currently so it is not so visually jarring.

You make a good case for the current starting distances but I'd still like to see some variability in the starting distances. Part of being a great tactician is being able to adjust to the unknowns that are thrown at you in each battle. No two combat situations are ever exactly alike. Being handed the exact same starting distances each time detracts from something that should be a litte less certain, IMO. Think how much you'd desire and seek the initiative if it meant being able to determine the starting distance of the tactical or stategic combat at hand. I think it might put a little clench back in your stomach when facing the AI. Since you *would* be starting at long range much of the time it would still keep the tactics you mention in play and just intoduce a bit more uncertainty. A kind of "fog of war" if you will. Of course it wouldn't work at all without having the combat initiative added to the game. I do hope they add that.

I also agree they need to add the ability to scroll screens and a few other interface things mentioned in various reviews. Overall, perhaps I might just need to get more used to it.

Tomgs: Thanks for the tip. I'll try that. I'd speeded up animations first thing but was hitting the auto button which means having to keep hitting the end turn button constantly. I'll try your suggestion instead.

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

My two cents worth on retreat & other tactical issues...what I'd do if I was the programmer:

This assumes turn-based play. "Attacker" = the side whose strategic turn it is. "Defender" = the side who's strategic turn it is not.

If the attacker is entering via a warp point, defender gets to set up first anywhere he wants, but without seeing what the attacking force is first. Attacker starts with all ships stacked on the warp point but can't leave them stacked (excluding any which lose movement capability as a result of defender's first fire). Defender moves first in this scenario, meaning warp point defenders get a free shot at their best range at incoming attackers.

As a note, in the various editions of Starfire (as noted by others, the board game inspiration for the SE series of games) the various rules editions & optional rules have handled the above differently. Sometimes as described above, with all Attackers appearing on the warp point together. Sometimes one ship appears each tactical turn. Sometimes the warp point size and the ship sizes together determine how many ships can come through at the same time. Sometimes you can exceed that but lose a certain percentage to "interpenetration", which is how the latest Starfire rules handle it. I personally prefer to let them all come through together, as the Defender has enough advantages without making them spread it out over several tactical turns (plus Starfire has no limit on the number of tactical turns per battle).

Mines should only work against ships transiting a warp point. It would not matter which end of the warp point was mined. If the Attacker enters combat through a mined warp point (hostile mines), the mine attack is resolved first (and no combat is initiated if the attacker is wiped out by the mines).

Other than combats initiated by warp point transits, Attacker should move first.

The tactical map should scroll infinately - no border, no "cornering" a fleeing enemy.

Any ship in the same tactical map square as a warp point and with at least one movement point left could retreat through the warp point (suffering mine attack if applicable).

Otherwise, retreat would be an option for any mobile unit if both of the following conditions are met:

1) It is currently outside enemy weapons range.

2) It has a tactical speed equal or higher than the fastest armed enemy mobile unit.

Retreating attackers must also have at least one strategic movement point left for the turn, even if retreating trough a warp point. Retreating defenders would be using a point from their next turn in advance. In both cases, this would impose a limit on how many times you could retreat in a single strategic turn. A fleet with a higher strategic movement rate would be able to avoid combat by continually retreating.

After combat, units which retreated then get placed one sector away from the sector they retreated from on the system map. This could potentially initiate a new combat.

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

I believe making weapon firing simultaneous would make the tactical combat system more fair, though I admit that it'd be even more tedious to have seperate movement and firing phases for each side.

About initiative and missile dancing, just don't dance. Launch your salvos, and take your licks. Alternately, if you believe the mechanics give you an unfair advantage vs the A.I., research different paths, try using torps or hellbores as your main battery of choice. Reserve any missile installation to satellites or other non-mobile units. Just my 2 cents.

Crash.

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

Crash:

Of course you can simply choose not to exploit holes in the AI. I do it all the time in SE4. It makes for a far better and enjoyable game.

But I think it is something that should be addressed at some point. If it cant be fixed, then missiles should be altered in some way IMO. Players shouldnt be forced to not use certain mainstream weapons if at all possible.

As far the combat initiative goes, this is EXTREMELY important in MP games IMO. Going first is a tremendous advantage to have all the time and it really unbalances the game IMO. And it would certainly help the AI if it was allowed to go first in combats from time to time and I'm all for adjustments that will help out the AI.

Barnacle Bill:

As stated earlier in the post, retreat from combat would cause alot of problems on the strategic level of the game. I agree that intuitively, ships should be able to retreat from combat, but within the current game system its a bad idea IMO.

Picture this situation: Enemy fleet moves into a system where you have 3 or 4 planets. You have a defense fleet orbiting the main planet. The enemy is in range to hit a couple of the planets on their next move. How do you defend? If you attack the fleet, they simply retreat and then stomp on whatever planets they like. If you take away their movement the next turn you either 1) simply delay the inevitable while they tie down your fleet into attacking them every turn or 2) retreat is STILL pointless as you are locked 'strategically'.

Sure, you can always choose to defend the warp points but then why bother having the rest of the system maps? Just have Warp points and planets as that is all that will ever matter. No battles will ever be fought in space as the weaker force will always retreat. IMO, there is no way to implement a retreat system that cant be exploited given the 'IGO-UGO' turn system. Maybe someone can come up with one, but I seriously doubt one that isnt ridiculously complicated can fill the role.

Thanx,
Talenn

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Talenn:

Sure, you can always choose to defend the warp points but then why bother having the rest of the system maps? Just have Warp points and planets as that is all that will ever matter. No battles will ever be fought in space as the weaker force will always retreat. IMO, there is no way to implement a retreat system that cant be exploited given the 'IGO-UGO' turn system. Maybe someone can come up with one, but I seriously doubt one that isnt ridiculously complicated can fill the role.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, this problem has been solved in many other strategy games. I have been playing a game called Stars for a long time, and it too has a battle board (but much much smaller).

Basically, when a ship wants to retreat, it will take a fixed number of turns. So, let's say it will take 10 turns to retreat from a battle in SE4. When the retreating ship runs to the edge of the map trying to avoid the attacker. If the attacker can apply enough damage to the retreating ship before the 10th turn, it wins. Otherwise, the other ship will successfully retreat from the battle.
I am not too sure about the exact number of turns for a ship (with 3 movement points) to move across the battle map. If it takes 10 turns to do it, then we can make it 12 turns to retreat from the battle. That will give the attacker 2 turns to attack. If the ships involved has higher movement points, then it will take even less time to move through the map.
So if the retreating ships has higher MP than the attacker, then it might retreat without a scratch. OTOH, a slower or same speed retreating ship will have to endure at least 2 turns of attacks to retreat.

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

Evan42,

I think that sounds like a balanced solution and would work. Wonder if MM ever tried that and, if so, why they didn't implement it.

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

Evan and Coldsteel:

IMO, that would still not work. Dont get me wrong, I'd LIKE to see retreat be an option, but not at the cost of no longer being able to fight decisive battles. And that systems for retreats still doesnt solve that problem IMO.

Its nearly impossible to cross the tactical map in 10 turns (or whatever) let alone actually inflict meaningful damage. Even if you lengthened the time required to 15 or so, it still wouldnt be enough to stop someone from simply refusing to give battle if that was their intention (and it would be every time they felt outgunned). I think ColdSteel summed it up well if you interpret the 30 turn limit as the 'auto-retreat'. Maybe it should only end the combat in 30 turns if one side has pushed a 'retreat button'? If that was done, I'm sure that it would FEEL different and that retreat was possible.

No, something far more complex would be required I'm afraid. IMO it would require an actual 'inertia' movement system so you cant simply reverse direction at will etc. Then you could require a player to enter with 'x' base velocity (maybe based on their movement strategically beforehand?). If they could overcome or convert their velocity and then still be able to turn around and run, then fine. That would also give the enemy time to build velocity for pursuit etc. But that is adding whole new layers of complexity to the game--turn modes or whatnot and thrust capacity etc. It would be neat, but prolly aint gonna happen any time soon.

Given the current 'abstract' movement system, any form of retreat will be far too easy to accomplish before the enemy can prevent it and we are left with the strategic impasse that I mentioned below. Trust me, I've worked on many a turn based game system and its a difficult problem to solve. Even games like Age of Wonders (fantasy turn based) eventually had to adopt a system in which only the attacker could retreat.

The ability to force a decisive conflict MUST be present or the game falls apart. As of yet, I dont see how a system that allows the weaker force an easy escape to be able to still have decisive battles.

Talenn

[This message has been edited by Talenn (edited 01 January 2001).]

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

Talenn:

Under my proposal, you could only retreat if the other side doesn't have a speed advantage.

If you are faster, you SHOULD be able to evade the defenders in open space and get at the planets.

This is realistic. Let's look at the early 20th century naval paradigm. A force of "fast" (30 knot) battleships could evade an intercepting force of "slow" (25 knot) battleships and accomplish its mission.

How do you defend against this? First off, it gives smaller but faster ships an important role throughout the game to delay raiders until your heavies can catch up. This would be true both at the tactical level (preventing retreat) and at the system level (intercepting a heavier raiding force with the intent of sacrificing themselves to hopefully inflict engine damage on enough raiders that the raiding force cannot outrun your heavy force that arrives later).

Admittedly, it would work best with proportional movement at the system level.

Something could also be done similar to "Stars" in which ships can be ordered to intercept an opposing force. It seems like in one of the MOO games, enemy seekers moved during your turn - one square toward your ship on which they were targeting every time your ship moved one square. Sort of automated proportional movement. A fleet ordered to intercept an enemy fleet would move like that during the enemy's turn, borrowing against its movement allowance from your next turn. Fleets could be given orders to intercept anything coming through a warp point, with options for threshholds (number and/or type of ship) and/or ignoring the first "x" targets that warp in. This would limit the ability of the invader to decoy the interceptors and set up sort of a guessing game (which is very realistic - look at real life naval history).

Finally, the best defense is a good offense. If your own raiders wack the enemy refueling bases they won't have the endurance to reach deep into your territory. This could be enhanced by eliminating quantum reactors. Purpose-built raiders would have to sacrifice weapons for fuel load-out. While I was at it, I'd doctor the ship designs & components to make sure you can only build a cheap tanker on a slow "freighter" type hull and extending warship range would be expensive in both resources and hull space.

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

Talenn,

I see the point. After thinking about it some more I think that we have to consider the 30 turns a "tactical combat round". In between these combat rounds, weaker ships that survive the initial round have a chance to flee if they desire. So, in SE4 retreat actually occurs but it occurs outside of tactical combat altogether and between the "rounds". I think this is one of those cases where the SE4 combat and the MOO combat, though sharing many similarities, also have some profound differences that aren't apparant until you play it a while. I'm having to restructure how I think about it for SE4.

I think this is where a decent (thick) manual that at least outlines this kind of stuff would have been helpful for those just learning the game. Let's hope someone, somewhere puts something like that together.

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

Barnacle Bill:

Yes, I have a tendancy to want to make the game have Naval traits too. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif But SE4 has some fundamental differences from the Wet Navy . The most glaring would be that large ships can usually achieve the same speeds as small one (and more efficiently). Not until BBs do they start to slow down.

Smaller ships sacrifice a far greater capability to achieve speed 6 than large ones in SE4 which is quite the opposite of water based BBs and BCs vs CLs and DDs. 60kt of engines propels a FG or a BC at speed 6 but its a SIGNIFICANTLY higher percentage of the ship mass on the smaller hulls. There is little trade-off in making your ships faster. A 10kt differnce in other components in negligible. Personally, I liked the older SE3 model where it took more engines to propel the larger ships or the Starfire model where the larger ship's engines were simply bigger.

So the upshot of all of this is that you only see speed 6 ships until tech allows them to go higher through better engines and/or solar sails. And even at that the progression will be similar between players. So, for the most part, all ships will be the same speed. Given that, the disengagement rules wont work as everyone is going the same speed (roughly).

Even assuming it DID work correctly, would you really want 'raiders' being able to move around behind you at will? I know I wouldnt and it opens all kinds of cans of worms. Certain techs and trees would be so absolutely critical that players are pigeon-holed in their choices. IMO, that is bad as it makes all games feel the same when you are forced into researching the same items game after game in order to compete.

Of course a system COULD be implemented that could handle all of this, but it certainly isnt in place and adding a forgiving retreat would be very bad without significant change to the game mechanics and tech tree. Again, this is something that I just dont see happening in the near future if ever. So, IMO, a retreat system should stay out until/if the mechanics are capable of handling CORRECTLY. As usual, I dont see that it could hurt having it as an option for players who really want to give it a try or who want to mod their techs to allow for it.

ColdSteel:

Yes, SE4 and MOO2, while similar, definately have varying dynamics and interactions. Small ships could barely hurt a world in MOO2, but a few Frigates can easily glass a planet in SE4. That makes it an attacker's game and if you prevent the ability of the defender to intercept the enemy, it becomes much like the 'Mutually Assured Destruction' of the Nuclear Age..ie both player simply fly around and vaporize each other's econs while evading the enemy fleets.

So far, this has been a great discussion and I've enjoyed it very much. I hope that we have given SG and MM some interesting food for thought and that at the very least, an initiative system grows out of it.

Thanx,
Talenn

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

Talenn, I agree with you entirely regarding the reasons not wanting to change the existing system, despite the "oddities" that it imposes. The other main problem with any fix, and you have touched on it, is that the current arrangement works strategically for a turn based system. If it was possible to have your fleet track an intruder on the strategic level (at the owners descretion), then retreats could be allowed. With the current strategic system though, any one who was allowed to retreat from combat could, as you indicated, just move on and pound undefended planets.
Therefore, the current combat system has to remain if the strategic level is to continue to work. MOO2 retreats worked because the retreater was forced to have to go back to their nearest system and could not therefore take advantage of the fact that the other player had committed their fleet to battle.
Sorry guys, I dont like the concept of being pounded in a corner either (although I do get a sense of fun about pounding someone else in a corner)but any retreat solution has to take into account the strategic game level (which is difficult).......

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

Perhaps my original proposal of having a "fixed number of turns to retreat" can still be worked around by the attacker. But I think if we make some simple changes to it, it can still work.

You are worrying about the attacker having the ability to avoid decisive battles. And you made my proposal sound like a few turns of attacks won't even inflict any damages on the retreating side. But it will. Especially if the defender(attacker in the battle) is equiped with shield/engine zapping weapons.

And we can always increase the number of turns required to retreat, so it will give the other side more time to inflict damage. Perhaps the retreating side will not always be destroyed, but many of the ships will be crippled.

A decisive battle happens when BOTH sides are commited to the battle. (one side might not be willing to fight, but has no choice but to defend the HW for example) If one side chose to evade by taking some penalties, then they should have the right to do that. In that case, it will no longer be a decisive battle. We can make the penalty a little higher to persuade the retreater from retreating. But, they should have been given the option.

Also, what I have said is for normal space combat. But, if a battle occurs at a warp point, then it's a different ballgame. For one thing, the starting positions for both sides will be much closer together (if not right next to each other). In this case, the defender of the warp point should have enough time to attack regardless of the number of turns required to retreat.

In the case of battle at a warp point, I agree that the defender should be able to choose where to place their ships. So the defender will always have the upperhand by having their ships at the optimum firing range.

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

Here's an idea... Why not require a ship that wants to retreat to put a minimum distance between it and its opponets closest ship... say 30 range. The combat map will have to be made with "near-infinate" scrolling ability. This allows both speed and tactics to play an issue to retreat. For warp points, the vessel must enter the center for two rounds and must turn off its shields.

BTW, I think that there should be a definate "fix" to make larger ships require HEAVIER engines to get the same speed (acceleration?). Possibly through "Mount Types", but it would require both a min. and Max. size entry in the .txt files.

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trachmyr:
Here's an idea... Why not require a ship that wants to retreat to put a minimum distance between it and its opponets closest ship... say 30 range. The combat map will have to be made with "near-infinate" scrolling ability. This allows both speed and tactics to play an issue to retreat. For warp points, the vessel must enter the center for two rounds and must turn off its shields.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Putting a minimum distance of X in order to retreat will make the battle nearly impossible to play. If the opposition decides to evade the battle, he only needs to have the same speed. Sure, he won't be able to retreat, but he can just keep running infinitely, because the battle map is now "made with near-infinate scrolling ability". If the 30th-turn mandatory end-of-battle still exists, then he can still retreat without a scratch.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
BTW, I think that there should be a definate "fix" to make larger ships require HEAVIER engines to get the same speed (acceleration?). Possibly through "Mount Types", but it would require both a min. and Max. size entry in the .txt files.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. Increasing the size of engines on larger ships through the use of mount types is a good idea. But I don't believe there is enough mount types to be used for every ship size in the game.

Another idea is to set the mass of an engine on a ship equals to a fixed percentage of the total mass of the ship. But that might require many changes to the codes.

The easiest way to go is to have larger ships required to have more engines. Which means only the maximum number of engines for each ship hull needs to be changed. So, for an escort, it needs 6 standard engines to achieve speed 6. But for a frigate, it will need 8. destroyer needs 10... and so on. Although there is still the rounding of movement points to be sorted out, but this method will be the easiest to implement.

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

Why not just reduce tactical combat to 20 turns, or 15? IMO 30 is too much, a lowly frigate will be able to inflict massive damage to a planet without defenses.

With 15 ~ 20 tactical turns, a fleet wishing to retreat would have 5 turns or so to run for the corner without fire, then 10 turns trying to survive (against AI, u could do this by spredaing your forces). Once the battle has ended I'm sure the weaker fleet will sustain some damage so they either has to head home for repairs or ditch the damaged ships and move on, which will makes em weaked and the next battle will probably be its total destruction.

In my games few battles (except planet assauts) Last longer than 15 turns.. and for planet assaults it should work this way: the defender will have sometime to send in reinforcements and the battles will unfold more like a siege: taking many turns to bring a well defended planet down.

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

Yeah, I think the lowly scout taking out a planet with a laser is kinda pathetic. You would have to figure that with a planet of 6 billion population, they would be able to breed faster than that scout could pick them off http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/tongue.gif

I think they should make all weapons but bombs and troops useless for attacking planets. This will also force us to build bomber ships instead of just attack dreadnoughts.

I've not played multi, but with the AI I normally just build attack dreadnoughts and use them to take out planets. I don't even bother with ground combat. If I need to take over any of thier population I'll just use my subverter to take a colony ship.

This also lets me set my Strength to -50% to get more racial points =)

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snap Spelljammer:
Yeah, I think the lowly scout taking out a planet with a laser is kinda pathetic. You would have to figure that with a planet of 6 billion population, they would be able to breed faster than that scout could pick them off http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/tongue.gif

I think they should make all weapons but bombs and troops useless for attacking planets. This will also force us to build bomber ships instead of just attack dreadnoughts.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would make Weapon Platforms invulnerable to normal ships. If you could make normal weapons have a far higher damage per population ration than ground attack weapons it would make more sense. Ordinary beams ought to have 100:1 or so damage to kill population. So, you could harass a planet with beam ships but it would be almost impossible to destroy it. Then if "Planetary Napalm" and other ground attack weapons did closer to 10:1 population damage you'd really want to have some ships with those weapons to attack planets once your warships had taken out the WPs.



[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 02 January 2001).]

Re: Combat Initiative...
 

I know it would take a lot of coding changes and may not be worth implementing, at least at this time, but the engine system I'd like to see would be based on thrust/mass.

Each engine would rated for thrust produced and that would be compared with the mass of the ship to produce a speed. Fairly simple, but it makes good Newtonian sense, especially when compared with the current system.

I'm not really sure what I think about the current cap on speed for larger hulls. Is there a rational behind that, besides possible game balance issues? Reduced hull integrity for larger hulls or some such? And is it really neccessary for play balance?

I don't really think there should be a cap on the number of engines that can be placed on a hull. It would open up a whole 'nother area of choices to be made - exactly how much component space should be sacrificed for more speed?

If you have an initiative system based, at least in part, on speed, it would give faster ships an advantage but they'd have less weaponry to apply with that advantage so I think it'd even out fairly well.

It could give even more problems with the missile dance maneuver but if may even prevent some if enemy ships have the speed to close that gap despite retreating opponents.

I think, when it comes to retreating, there's no reason not to allow faster ships to break away. I'd like to see a scrolling combat screen and the ability for ships that reach a certain distance from the nearest opponent to remove themselves from combat.

If ships of more variable speed are allowed and not every one proceeds at virtually the same pace, than interceptor ships as well as raiders become possible. Add a ship or two optimized for speed to your fleet and let them harass the enemy as they attempt to retreat. Put some engine destroying weapons on them and they'd have a good ol' time! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif