\'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

I’m looking for feedback on this idea before I submit it to Malfador:

In tactical combat Satellites and Weapon Platforms are almost useless for defense because the attacker always has the initiative. If we assume equally armed opponents (ships vs. sats or platforms) then my tactic is to make sure I have the movement points, move forward one square into range, fire, then move back one square out of range. With this tactic the Satellites and WPs will never get a shot off because my ship will always be out of their range when it is their turn to fire. Even a large WP armed with Wave Motion Gun IIIs is useless against any ship with the same armament (or decent missiles, for that matter).

Potential solutions:

1) Allow Satellites and WPs to fire first as soon as an enemy moves into range.
2) Make the act of firing use up all remaining movement points.

I personally lean towards #1.

Interested in what people think.

TM

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

Well, for satellites at least, consider sticking missiles on them. Make sure the sats are in a decent quantity, and use your fastest ones (e.g. Plasma V, which now moves at 6 if memory serves).

It's impossible to win a missile duel with satellites, after all, since you can't *hit* them with missiles regardless of move-fire-move.

Perhaps WPs should get weaker Versions of the Base Mounts (i.e. range bonus) but, hrm, that's debatable.

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

No, I don't think that's debatable at all. WPs should get at least as powerful mounts as bases. If you think about it, a WP could justifiably get MORE powerful mounts than bases although if you set any higher range extensions there may be no place to hide on the combat map. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Anyway, on the surface of a planet you could be using the civilian power grid to boost your available power, you could have intercoolers and other resources connected to but not IN the bunker with the weapons, etc. I have altered WP mounts to be one "size" class less for WPs, in fact. The "large" mount has no size increase, the "huge" mount only a 50 percent increase and the "Massive" mount only a 100 percent increase. So, you can cram more of them in a given size of WP. ANd they also have the same range extension as a base mount of the same class. This makes planets as formidable as they ought to be. Now if only the AI would be smart enough to USE the extended range it would be a real challenge to take on a planet.

Same for satellites, but to a lesser degree. The "large" satellite mount in my tech set has a +1 range boost. And yes, I also include some missile satellites in any group -- these also have at least one PDC each. Balance in weapons and defenses is a good thing.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 28 November 2000).]

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

Hmm, if it isn't debatable, than why are you debating it? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/tongue.gif

OK, just kiddin' there! Put down the plasma launcher! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

I think if you include the "outside the hull" idea for WP components, you need to remember to boost the cost of the internal components to reflect that.

IOW, if you are supposed to be relying on the civilian power grid to run your WP cannon, you would need to make sure that grid is properly hardened, brown-out control is provided for vital civilian services, and so forth. Plus, of course, you'd have to put in all the cabling and support facilities to provide the access channel. The costs for all of this have to be paid for somehow!

You also need to find a rational of how these WPs would be able to function the same way when dropped on a brand new colony which hasn't even built its first facility.

This isn't to say you can't do all this . . . only that your "half-mounts" for WPs with their external support networks should cost quite a bit more than the equivalent base mountings. The inefficency inherent in such a set up, as well as the increased complexity of the engineering demands, would be quite costly to overcome.

In any case though, I don't think WP ranges need to be changed at all. Transports need to close to drop their troops and WPs, unless technologically outmatched (and upgrading units is definitely an issue I'd love to see addressed!), do a good enough job of keeping them at bay.

One thing that has rather bothered me about WPs on worlds with atmospheres is the fact their beam and kinetic weapons pierce the atmosphere without penalty. They shouldn't be able to deliver the same punch with the same weapon as a ship who doesn't have to cut through an atmosphere to hit its target. And the same should go for attacking ground-side targets from above, of course.

I think there should be a penalty assessed for beam weapons used by and against ground targets on worlds with an atmosphere. Missiles should be able to avoid this penalty and that would make an interesting situation when you're faced with a combined defense of satellites and WPs. The missiles would be best against the WPs but useless against the satellites.

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

Okay, I like the idea of ‘supercharged’ WP and Satellite weapons. As far as the cost question goes, perhaps a series of ‘Energy Grid’ facilities could be added to one of the research areas (Physics?) that each increase the range of direct fire WP and orbital weapons by +1.

The main goal here is to give the AI better defensive capability during tactical combat, so whatever the solution is the AI needs to be changed in order to use it. From that perspective the ‘Opportunity Fire’ solution is by far the easiest to implement. I think the PD cannons already use this method.

TM

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

Ow. I wouldn't want to fight a well-armed Ringworld then. ;-)

Planets, IIRC, get a *slight* advantage against seekers -- apparently, (maybe this depends upon from what direction the seekers are fired?) the square to which range is calculated may not be the square of impact. That is, a planet can have WPs with the exact same missile Version as an attacking ship, and (perhaps only some of) the WP's missiles might be able to go the distance but the ship's fall a single square short. ISTR that the attacking ship should be at least 1, and perhaps 2, squares closer than nominally required by weapon range. But it's not exactly much of an advantage, when a fast ship (at least pre-patch, or versus the earlier missiles) can basicaly orbit a planet, firing beam weapons while dodging seekers.

It does make sense that a planet could have bigger, meaner guns than even a Starbase, and with better stabilizing mechanisms and so forth. I wonder if it should be possible to hide them (at least until they fire)... muhahahahahaha.

------------------
-- The thing that goes bump in the night

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

I think a weapon facility would be a good option. WPs could remain small(ish) autonomous units and for the big "Grand Cannon" guns, use a facility that would act as a weapon in combat.

Wave Motion Cannon Facility, anyone? It'd have a BIG boom. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon10.gif

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

While added range, opportunity fire, remove mp after fire are all good ideas I have an even better one. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif If my idea can't be implemented (or is just to much work) I would vote for opportunity fire first, added range second and killmove not at all. Anyone ever seen a vetnavy battleship stop dead after it fires it's guns? No? Didn't think so. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Here's my idea:
Make combat simultaneous. Both sides move and shoot at the same time. First there's an order phase where all sides give movement, targeting and firing orders at the same time. Then there's a move/fire phase in which movement occurs and fire happens when the targeted enemy comes into range. We would of course need primary, secondary and tertiary firing orders in case the primary target moves away and the secondary comes closer. We would also need to introduce speed as opposed to movementpoints so fighters and faster ships can actually move up close to the big boys. No fun if they can only move one square/turn. That's the bare bones of my idea but it needs to be fleshed out. But think about, it would solve alot of problems and also eliminate the "pick a victim and pound it until it dies" syndrome we have now. We would have to decide if we want to make absolutely sure we kill a target and do some massive overkill on it or spread our fire in hopes of damaging as many targets as possible. Formations would also be more important for mutual point defense support.

Which brings up another point. I want some kind of combat command net and point defense net like in David Webers Honor Harrington books. A flagship that calls the shots and all ships tracking systems are working together to get better firing solutions on seekers, ships and fighters. Task Groups of smaller ships with their own flagships and so on. Several levels of course. The higher the level the more ships can be in it. Bust the flagship (unknown to the enemy which it is btw) and you get a turn of confusion until a new flagship can be assigned. Bust a ships communication net components and it falls out of the net and fight on it's on. Well, you get the idea, especially if you have read the books. But I'm wandering off topic so I'll stop here.

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jubala:
Which brings up another point. I want some kind of combat command net and point defense net like in David Webers Honor Harrington books.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is Starfire's "datalink" (and Command Datalink) system(s). They have quite an effect in Weber's Starfire books, too. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

I wouldn't mind seeing something like this implemented. But it could be a bear to balance.

Dutch

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

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

I think there should be a penalty assessed for beam weapons used by and against ground targets on worlds with an atmosphere. Missiles should be able to avoid this .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree.

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

What you guys are thinking of is an RTS-style combat system.

Basically, when a battle begins, it is paused. Once all units have been given orders, it unpauses and the ships fight it out in real-time like a movie. Orders may or may not be issued while the battle rages, but after a set time increment the battle pauses and orders can be changed.

A) After the initial orders, the battle plays out in real-time where you can issue orders as the battle rages until the battle ends.

B) After the initial orders, the battle plays out in real-time for a set time. The battle pauses and orders can be changed. Unpause, watch, pause, orders, unpause, watch, etc. until the battle ends.

(I prefer A)

This is always something I have desired in a game like this. It fixes a lot of problems inherent with turn-based combat. I.E. whoever attacks first will usually win (most evident in MOO2). Plus, it would just be fun to watch! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon10.gif

Just imagine, full 3d fleets with incredible visual effects set loose upon each other in a real-time combat scenario with you, the player, strapped in for a good show. Sit back and watch the action! (Okay, a bit overboard, but I can dream can't I?)

But that is something for SEV.. maybe. I hear a lot of good about MM and how they respond to player input.

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

Arc.Smiloid,

Both of the models you mention have things going for them.

A. is like Starfleet Command (a great, real-time adaptation of Star Fleet Battles, IMHO) which provides for a seamless and thus more-"realistic" simulation of starship combat. Assuming that players can set the speed as low as desired (as in SFC), this won't result in lack of time making for rushed/poor decisions (a leading reason why RTS games can be disliked by turn-based players, I believe).

B. is the Combat Mission model (I keep finding myself relating this game to SE4, though I don't plan it http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif). CM provides a really fascinating mix of your "omniscient" orders given at the start of each minute-long turn as they're interpreted by your troops (a tactical AI that can partially or totally take over depending on how the turn plays out) during the turn.

As big a supporter as I used to be of total player control in a turn-based environment (and still am, compared to the frenzied click-fest that substitutes for "strategy" in most RT'S' games), I must say that SFC and CM have changed my view, and I now enjoy the non-turn-based structure they offer, in addition to turn-based games.

Well, that's a bit off the subject: the "I move then fire; you fire then move" tradeoff of the non-simultaneous/non-impulse movement system in SE4 that can result in the combat problems mentioned. AFAIK, the turn-based game that best corrected this was Star Fleet Battles. By breaking movement down into a per-hex/impulse basis and allowing fire at that level, it prevented the sort of excesses present in SE4 (and Starfire before it, along with every other tactical all-move-then-fire or fire-then-all-move or fire-at-will-during-movement system) without going real-time. Something like opportunity fire would do this too, but wouldn't be as thorough a solution as impulse movement. However, it might be a worthwhile trade-off since today's players don't really expect to need the patience that impulse movement requires (myself included, though I was happy with impulse movement 18 years ago).

Just my two centi-credits...

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

In an impulse movement system, you break the turn down into a number of "impulses" equal to the fastest object in the game.

Then make a chart such that the movement of each "thing" is spaced out over the turn. For a very simple chart, which assumes everything in the game can travel at a speed of either 1, 2, 3, or 4: (I# is the impulse number; play the turn as impulse 1 (move then fire); impulse 2 (move then fire previously unfired weapons); impulse 3 (move then fire previously unfired weapons); impulse 4 (move then fire previously unfired weapons). S# is the speed of the object. The # is for the movement point a unit at a given speed spends on a given impulse.)

-----I1-----I2-----I3--------I4
.
S1..................................1
.
S2.............1...................2
.
S3.....1.......2..................3
.
S4.....1.......2.......3.........4


Thus a unit with a speed of 1 moves only in the final impulse. A unit with a speed of 2 moves on the 2nd and 4th impulses, etc. Some systems make the "everybody moves" impulse be the first, instead of the final, but final impulse tends to work better (because it keeps fast ships from moving in rings around slow ones, and prevents slow ones from briefly being as fast as speedy ones).

SFB also treats all weapon recharge rates in terms of impulses, so a weapon fired at the end of turn 1 can't be fired at the beginning of turn 2. (SFB uses 32 impulses per turn.)

Those of you who have followed this far have probably figured out that impulse movement is a form of approximation of true simultaneous-continuous movement. Just as in calculus, the more finely you divide up the units of time and space, the closer this system approximates continuous simultaneous activity. SFB approaches (or transcends &lt;grin&gt; the limits of the playable in using this system for a game without ocmputer assistance. The computer Version of SFB, SFC (Star Fleet Command), used the computing power in part to make the time & space granularity much, much smaller than SFB's; close enough that SFC plays as if it were a true continuous-simultaneous game. [By definition, no game can manage to be perfectly continuous-simultaneous, since this would require infinite resolution. however, by using calculus, you can approximate the results very well. 8) ]

[Edited thrice because the UBB kept on buggering up my nice neat chart.]

[This message has been edited by James Sterrett (edited 30 November 2000).]

[This message has been edited by James Sterrett (edited 30 November 2000).]

[This message has been edited by James Sterrett (edited 30 November 2000).]

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

WendellM, explain impulse movement please.

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

If you use the CODE tag, it'll keep charts like that nicely formatted:

This is a good idea, IMO. (The impulse system, I mean, not the formatting! http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif) I used to play Star Fleet Battles and the system worked quite nicely. With the computer to handle the impulse, it should flow quite smoothly.

EDIT: And if you do use UBB tags, don't do what I just did and mispell them. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...s/rolleyes.gif

[This message has been edited by Psitticine (edited 01 December 2000).]

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>WendellM, explain impulse movement please.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would, but James has already done a nice job (my thanks to a fellow SFB-er http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif).

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

I agree, James did do a bang up job of it. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif I also agree it sounds like a good system to use.

Re: \'Opportunity Fire\' for Sattelites & WPs
 

Thanks for the formatting tip - I obviously need to spend more time with help files and less with rulebooks. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Glad you guys found the post useful. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif