Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Hey Folks,

I just wanted to throw an idea out there that's prolly been mentioned before but....

Anyways, we've all had issues with the tactical combat, whether its the 'missile dance' the hit and run on bases etc. What I have been experimenting with in tactical test battles is a possible quick-fix.

Basically, just prevent a ship from moving after it fires...ie, movement is set to 0 after shooting any non-PD weapon. It shouldnt be difficult to implement from a coding standpoint most likely. While this sounds odd, it might really help solve some of the problems:

1) The hit and run on bases and sats...gone

2) The missile dance...not gone, but more difficult.

Of course it makes the disengagement 'run' more difficult (ie you arent returning fire unless its from maximum range). It does help reward long range weaponry a bit which is a good thing IMO.

If you want to get fancy, just add a 'movement point penalty when firing' to each hull type. That way it can be different for different sizes of ships. It would be possible to have Frigates, Destroyers etc capable of 'shoot and scoot' (make their 'penalty' 0 or 1) while large ships cant (penalty 3+). It could actually extend the usefulness of small hulls in this way.

But at the very least, the basic system of preventing movement after fire will be an added abstraction that helps solve some of the 'silliness' that occurs in tactical combat.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Talenn

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

This sounds like a good idea to me.

It has always bothered me that I could move my ships just inside the firing range of the enemy satellites or planet, fire and then move out again. This would be a very easy way for MM to address that problem.

Good thinking, Talenn!

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

[quote]Originally posted by Talenn:
[b]

If you want to get fancy, just add a 'movement point penalty when firing' to each hull type. That way it can be different for different sizes of ships. It would be possible to have Frigates, Destroyers etc capable of 'shoot and scoot' (make their 'penalty' 0 or 1) while large ships cant (penalty 3+). It could actually extend the usefulness of small hulls in this way.

I like this. Your right, it should help on both counts. I think Aaron would enjoy a "quick fix" until he has time later on to make more advanced fixes. You got my vote.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

I would strongly prefer a "Steel Panthers" style opportunity fire system to this. There is no reason why a spacecraft would have to stop to fire.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Barnacle Bill:

You are absolutely right from a realism point of view. But this is an abstraction, just like the rest of the tactical combat engine. There is no reason a ship could move in any direction it wants to without regard to inertia either, yet it's in the game...so one abstraction is demanded by another.

Also, like I mentioned, this is a 'quick fix'. It should require minimal coding and still addresses the concerns. Adding 'op fire' like in SP would lead to host of other issues, not the least of which is that (like in SP) you'd use 'useless ships' to draw enemy op fire and then kill them your 'real ships'. In a game like SE4, it could be heavily perverted due to the construction system...how difficult would it be to design a class of ships with nothing but shields/armor as 'op fire decoys' and then design mostly firepower ships to capitalize on it? This would lead to EXTREMELY silly tactics IMO, far outweighing any benefits that could be gained from the Op fire.

So, in summary, REALISM, has to go out the window every now and then to make the abstract game engine work. Its the same thing with the disengagement rules. Nope, it aint 'realistic' but the game does WORK with it.

Talenn

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

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

If you want to get fancy, just add a 'movement point penalty when firing' to each hull type. That way it can be different for different sizes of ships. It would be possible to have Frigates, Destroyers etc capable of 'shoot and scoot' (make their 'penalty' 0 or 1) while large ships cant (penalty 3+). It could actually extend the usefulness of small hulls in this way

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I too think that this is a great idea.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

I agree with you guys. However, all this talk is useless unless you mail this to MM. Also, it would be nice if more of you mail MM about this so it gets their attention and put it on top of the list. Same thing goes about construction queues (the other topic on board) - Mephisto's mail may not be enough for MM to put it on top. And, IMHO these two things should be TOP priority, since they both cripple AI significantly.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

I do like this idea a lot. The benifits far out weigh the drawbacks, and it prevents one sided tatical games. Very good idea.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

This is actually quite similar to some other tactical games I've played where the attack itself costs the attacker movement points, which is basically what you're doing here. Good thinking.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

The better solution is the opportunity fire suggestion by Bill. I'm not so sure I like the no moving after shooting suggestion, Talen.

What do ya do if you have a ship with long range and short range weapons on it. It is your turn. You are within range of the enemy with all your weapons.

Forget about what the enemy is going to do or can do for a minute.

Should I move to maximum range for my shortest range weapon( I might be there already) fire and maybe get more pounded in return or move to maxium range for my longest range weapon and lose the use of my shorter range weapons and maybe get less pounded.

All because if I shoot even one weapon I can't move.

Hmm, sorta sounds like trading one problem for another to me.

Maybe I'm not understanding something fully
though.

I am not trying to be a nay-sayer or bust on your idea Talen. I really am not sure if it makes things really any better ... maybe just different.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

How about being able to fire then move or move then fire. Until opportunity fire is installed there are to many ways to abuse the system.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

I think Talenn has explained the reasons why opportunity fire is not good in this game. You can make a decoy ships that will take away the fire from ships and then have the big guns get close and personal. In the game where you can have custom designs that is always the case, and in the game like "Steel Panthers" you can't make decoys.

There are 2 options for opportunity fire:
1) The point-defense type that reacts automatically as the ship moves in range. Decoys can easily divert this type of fire.
2) The type that is used in most tactical games like Jagged Alliance where you get limited control of the unit and the ability to choose its actions (retreat or fire). There are several issues here:
- In order for ship to move, it would have to have movement point left (right now almost all ships use up all their movement points when they can). You will have to make AI wait for the enemy to come in range and then use opportunity fire which means completely rewriting the algorithm AI uses in tactical combat. It is exactly the opposite of the 'simple' and 'easy to fix' solution. It may be a long term solution until all other issues are solved.
- That wouldn't help static units since they can only wait for enemy units to come in range and that puts us back to point-defense type of reaction.
- How do you make AI decide what ship is a real threat in a game where everybody can make custom ships, components, etc. If you make AI see threat in ships with lots of weapons on them, you can use a ship with lots of low-cost weapons with smallest weapon-mounts and use it as a decoy. If you make AI see threat in ships with most powerful weapon on it, you will make a ship with single most powerful weapon and lots of shields and use it as a decoy. If you make AI see threat in ships that have the biggest overall damage potential of all weapons on them, it will completely ignore the weapons that damage weapons, engines or shields only.
In short opportunity fire is no go because you give human much more options to (ab)use AI in this kind of game. There are simply too many options for scripted AI.

If you want to have AI and human on more even grounds in tactical combat, you have to limit the human to do what AI can do. AI can't move-shoot-move at this point and removing this will help make game more interesting. Just like Talenn said this could be a temporal solution until MM makes AI use move-shoot-move tactic efficiently.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Tenryu:

No probs at all. The reason I posted it here was to elicit feedback. I agree that its not perfect, but it is fix to some of the existing problems. Whether or not it would introduce more problems remains to be seen and is the very reason I want others to consider the permutations.

The long and short range weapons on a ship could be a potential problem. I dont think its anywhere near as bad as the current 'hit and run' or 'missile dance'.

Thanx for the input all.

Talenn

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Daynarr:
.
If you want to have AI and human on more even grounds in tactical combat, you have to limit the human to do what AI can do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that's the crux of the issue.

Rather then asking MM to limit our options, I'm more in favor of asking them to get the AI working better. Maybe all that's needed for this issue is for the AI to start using decoys also.

I do understand your point though.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Tenryu:

I also think these changes would benefit player vs player games as well. At the very least it makes it so that 'static' defenses are more worthwhile.

But even if it didnt do so, I think it is a good way to help the AI without giving it 'cheats'. I cant really think of any other good ways to help it vs the 'missile dance'. Even HUMANS cant beat it unless they simply pack their ships with PD weapons or missiles themselves.

I dont see any reasonable way to have the AI modify its ship designs to respond to other's missile/fighters. In the absence of that, I think this would go a long way to helping restore some fight from the AI.

FWIW, I would, of course, prefer the AI to be strengthened to the point where it wouldnt be necessary as well. Regardless, I think this change will add a certain element of thinking to the tactical combat and also on the design table.

Talenn

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

I think the missile dance itself is a lot more realistic than than having to stop after you fire. Again, in real life if you are both faster than your opponent and have longer ranged weapons than you win without getting your hair mussed. Ask Crassus, or anybody who ever fought the Mongols.

As to the reality of the movement system, it is only realistic if you assume Newtonian physics still apply. "Inertialess" drives are pretty common in science fiction.

I don't see the big problem with decoys, either. They cost a lot in the long run, and you have to maintain them, too. It would also not be that hard to program the AI to consider the various ships involved in the combat as well as their ranges in deciding who to use opportunity fire on, perhaps with a small random element to make it more unpredictable.

Another thing which could be done without sacrificing realism, actually increasing it, it to move to a proportional movement system in tactical combat. The idea here is that instead of going the entire turn on an "igo-ugo" basis, the turn is divided into a number of "impulses" equal to the fastest tactical speed the game will support. If a ship has that maximum possible speed, it can move one square every impulse. If it has 1/2 the maximum speed, it can move 1 square every other impulse, etc... A ship that doesn't move when it has the opportunity loses that MP for the turn. Weapons still only fire once per turn (or less, for those with reload times greater than 1 turn). However, any unit can fire in any impulse whether it moved or not. The impulse has two phases, first movement, then fire, and all fire in the same impulse is simultaneous. This will solve the "missile dance" issue in a way that increases realism, rather than decreases it.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Hey Bill, think you can convince MM to add weapon arcs and turn modes while your at it? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

I do like the impulse idea. Would be neat if impulse-based tactical combat was a Setting (or selected during galaxy creation).

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Barnacle Bill:


Sure, those are all great ideas. I'd wouldnt mind seeing an 'impulse movement system' in the game, but I dont see it happening any time soon. The original goal of the post was 'quick fix', not a complete overhaul of the tactical combat engine. If MM decided to redo combat that way, I'm all for it (except for the drastically increased play time it would entail), but in absence of that, I'd like to see something done to reduce some of the more obvious tactical combat exploits.

FWIW, while the 'missile dance' may be somewhat 'realistic' (if we ignore inertia), it sure as heck doesnt make the game as fun to play. When playing competitively with other humans, people are going to do what it takes to win (and they have every right to, IMO) That causes the game to feel a bit stale when EVERYONE is using missiles and when players are standing off fleets of cruisers with destroyers and frigates.

As I pointed out below, the combat engine has NOTHING to do with realism. It allows the players to engage in a 'chess-like' battle using ships of their own design. It conveys the flavor of space sci-fi conflict. It allows for the use of differing tactics. IMO, thats all it should be doing. If we want a more detailed combat sim, we can go play SFC2 (when they finally patch it enough to be playable, that is...). But I dont think it is within the scope of SE4 to provide a detailed combat engine. What we have (abstract) is fine in most cases, but it has some serious loopholes. I'd just like to see those loopholes closed or reduced.

Talenn

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

If the "missile dance" was the only problem, it would probably be just as easy to teach the computer to do it as it would be to implement any of these other ideas. For instance, it seems to me that the "Maximum Range" firing strategy could be tweaked for missile ships so that the computer ends up with ships that start their turns out of firing range, dip in to maximum range, fire, then bob back out. (revert to "Don't get hurt" until a new missile is ready to fire?)

Of course if the object is to get rid of the "dance", as well as the hit and run attacks on bases and satelites, then the solution that would be easiest (not most realistic, just easy) is probably going to be the "Movement point penalty when firing" idea that Talenn proposed at the start of this thread.

Actually, I have to admit that I kind of like the part of the idea that forces large ships to stop moving after they fire, while allowing smaller ships more leeway to dodge around. Of course I'm liable to be a little biased in this regard, I usually like things that let me torment my enemies with fleets of nimble ships that dart here and there too fast for anyone to get a decent lock on. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

The difficulty with that is it doesn't really make any sense (no inertia so why should small ships fire any differently than big ones?), and it makes it harder to lay down fire to cover retreats. Not, I suppose, that anything really needs to make that much sense provided it improves the game-play.

If nothing else, the "Movement point penalty when firing" might mix things up a little. It could make smaller hulls useful for a longer period of time (kind of fun).

What if the penalty only applied to missiles? For instance, what if a ship was allowed to zig and zag as much as it wanted provided all it did was fire beam weapons, but it got hit with a movement point penalty for missile type weapons?

That would let people use energy weapons as they do now, but it would still keep the "missile dance" types of moves from being so easy. In this case, a ship with both types of weapons could start its turn in close firing beam weapons, and end its turn by running as far as it can get before firing missiles.

I think this could work provided missiles only deducted movement points when they were there to deduct, but didn't require the ship to have movement points in order to fire.

Opinions?

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Talenn,

LOL!
I don't really disagree with your points.
If you can get MM to do it.
I'll not stop playing the game. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Lucas:

Yes, some folks have experimented with teaching the AI to 'missile dance'. Unfortunately, it simply makes missiles a 'trump' card and pigeon-holes players (and AIs) into researching them and PD weapons up every game. IMO, it detracts from replay value as you know that EVERY game you have to research this stuff or lose. I much prefer options to requirements. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

And yep, my first testing was done with stopping movement after firing a seeking weapon, but direct fire weapons didnt suffer the same penalty. It worked well. But I figured why not make it pertain across the board and remove the 'hit and run' problem as well?

Its really not to difficult for anyone to test what it feels like. Simply use the combat simulator and play both sides. Try it out both ways and see what you think.

The difference in 'penalty' by ship class was simply for flavor. I'd like for small ships to have some sort of 'maneuverability' advantage over the capital ships and this is nice, simple and abstract way to represent it.

Thanx for the input.

Talenn

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

This is one suggestion that I hope MM does not listen to, or if they do listen then impliment it in a way that I can undo via mod. I don't buy this stuff about "its all an abstraction, anyway". Of course, some compromises are necessary to translate even a science fiction inertialess system into turn-based movement, but those compromises are inherent in turn-based movement. This is not. Having spaceships stop to fire feels totally wrong. Although I would like to see the "missile dance" & "hit & run" things addressed, I would rather live with them forever and have no effective weapons in the game except missiles than to have spaceships stop to fire. It would totally ruin the game for me. If this change is made in a way that I couldn't undo it, I would stop playing the game.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Others have suggested numerous ideas, such as a phased combat system (I believe Stars! currently uses both movement and firing phases), and impulses (again, more discretization).

Simply plotting movements (perhaps for all ships before a phase, then all ships move simultaneously albeit not necessarily with equal speed) with AI fire control (mostly) might be a good idea.

As for decoy ships, perhaps they can be avoided by specifying a targetting priority series like (Has Weapons, Strongest, Most Damaged, Nearest). If Strongest refers to attack power that is... the whole strategy bit could use more documentation/options (e.g. ordering ships to ram if crippled, and so forth).

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

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If this change is made in a way that I couldn't undo it, I would stop playing the game.[/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are out of line here BB. What if we all start saying that we don't want to play game anymore if MM doesn't do as we want. We are not a bunch of newbees that have no idea how the game works and should work, but people who are here for a long time and have contributed for the game during that time. You are, also, not the only old time gamer this site - lots of us have been with these kind of games long before SE series, of PC computers for that matter. To brush of somebody's suggestion like that really sounds like an insult to the rest of us.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Barnacle Bill:

Well it was not my intention to completely remove the enjoyment of playing the game for some folks. I definately favor ALL changes like this to be 'customizable' by an option to have or have not.

But to me, your logic is just a bit out of whack. Having spaceships stop to fire feels totally wrong, but having them just sit there and NOT fire while the enemy closes, fires, and then leaves is fine? That makes no sense to me. I understand that you may not be interested in replacing one abstraction with another, but at least the one proposed removes certain exploits of the system as well as allows for fixed defenses to actually have a purpose.

In other words, if you are so against a change like this that you would rather reduce the game to just ONE type of weapon, I'm not sure what you want out of the game. It certainly isnt realism and it certainly isnt 'playability' (for lack of a better term).

Finally, if the tac combat is NOT an abstraction what could you could consider it to be? 'Realistic' in any way, shape, or form? I dont think so.

Anyways, I'm just baffled by the logic behind your complaint with it. No biggie though, it was just a suggestion and my world wont end by not seeing it implemented. In fact, that was the very reason I posted it here rather than Emailing it directly to MM. I wanted to get feedback.

Talenn

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

As an interim fix, I have modded my files to enable point defence at game start, have the AI design its ships so that they have 2 PD per 100 kT and reduced the space requirement for PD for computer players to 15kT.

The AI ships are slightly lighter punch wise but they can only be killed by massed missiles or fighters. They are still susceptible to "beam dancing" but overall they are much more challenging. If they get a slight tech edge on you, they are very challenging....

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by God Emperor:
As an interim fix, I have modded my files to enable point defence at game start, have the AI design its ships so that they have 2 PD per 100 kT and reduced the space requirement for PD for computer players to 15kT.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Emperor,
What exactly did you do. I saw your post on the 1 per issue, not that I really understand, because I haven't yet messed with the AI files.

Advice on what to do to get my AI files adjusted as per your PD thing would be appreciated.
Thanks

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Will upload them into the Mod Archive when I get home from work in about 7 hrs time.

What I have done is to edit the AI_DesignCreation files for the Attack Ship and Defence Ship on the point defence lines, and the Components file for point defence (Space Tonnage lowered from 20 down to 15).
This does lower the cost of PD for me too, but, I build my ships as though they cost 20 space (leave 5kT free per PD that I include). I didnt see much point doing a more complicated mod to make them cost 20 for me and 15 for the AI as a "house rule" seemed does the job fine and means that the mod will be more capatible with the next patch.
This mod doesnt actually improve the AI's tactics, it just designs the ships better for the AI's current tactics....

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

has anybody mailed MM about Talenns original proposition ? As far as I am concerned it is an excellent and easily implementable way to remove some of the weak spots in tactical combat.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Nitram Draw:

Well, the objective isnt to make it fair for both sides but 'fair' within weapon Groups. When one weapon type has a tremendous advantage over the others, something needs to be adjusted IMO. The mark of a good game is that it takes differing weapons systems and units to achieve victory, not just using the same one over and over. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif Also, firing outside their range DOES make sense, but entering their range, firing, and then leaving without being shot at doesn't and that is problem I am trying to see corrected.

A side benefit of that change would be an increase in the usefulness of orbital and planetary defenses. It also gives a new hook on which to hang small ship 'maneuverability'...ie, the small ships CAN hit and run, but the large ones must commit. I think this is the best option as well, but I'd be more than happy to see anything that works that will aleviate some of the more persistant problems plaguing the tactical combat.

jowe01:

I havent emailed MM with this suggestion. I was hoping to post it here and generate feedback and potential modifications. I kind of hope that MM or other testers read stuff like this and can draw their own conclusions as to what is good for the game or not. If they dont get the time to check out this board, I suppose I should send them a note pointing them to this thread so they can see the pros and cons of the idea.

Talenn

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Talenn:

Alternating moves in which everyone gets the number of movement points their engines entitle them to is an abstraction compared to simultaneous movement, but having to stop a spacecraft in order to fire is not an "abstraction". It is just plain wrong. The thing being modelled is in actuality continuously in motion. Making ships stop to fire is just arbitrary. I find that far more disturbing than the idea that only one weapon type would be viable. Sure, it is cool to have options, but you can have a very good naval combat game (in space or otherwise) where only one type of weapon is in use. You can't have one where ships have to stop to fire, IMO. That is the logic behind my complaint. IMO, this "fix" is worse than the problem it is supposed to cure.

Daynarr:

My comment regarding the impact that the proposed change would have on my enjoyment of the game was not intended as an insult to anyone. It is just an honest expression of my opinion. SE4 is certainly not perfect, and I'd be happy to see more changes to improve it. However, I am enjoying as it is right now. I would not enjoy it anymore if this particular change was made, and in such a way that I could not undo it in my own data set. If I don't enjoy it, I won't play it. I'm only in this for the fun.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Maybe fair was the wrong word. Balanced might better describe what I am looking for. After all who wants to be in a fair fight, I need every advantage I can get http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif
The ducking in and out does seem wrong. I'm am not sure what the solution should be but the current tactical combat certainly gets old. I hope someone can come up with a workable solution.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Perhaps stopping all movement would be too drastic but adding movement penalties for firing would help. Perhaps some weapons like missles would have more penalties then others or the penalties should be moddable including 0 delay for all weapons if you want. A solution that is modifiable would be much better than a hard coded drastic change that some would like and some dislike. I personally would not mind a movement penalty for firing especially if you could move your full range then fire as an option. That would stop a lot of the move, fire, then move again strategies but would still allow full movement and firing. Otherwise someone would design a ship with high shields and/or armor and just not fire a few rounds to "catch up" with a faster but firing opponent.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Tomgs:

Thats exactly why I posted that suggestion. IMO, its the best solution. A movement point penalty for firing based on the hull (and modifiable) would make everyone happy. Some could use it make smaller ships more viable. Some could use it to completely alleviate the hit and runs and 'missile dance'. Folks like BB who dont like it all could simply set the penalties to 0 and be none the worse for it.

Hopefully other ideas will come along that clear up some of these problems, but until then, I'd like to see a quick fix implemented. Anyone else have any further thoughts on this? I'd like to reach a reasonable consensus before Emailing MM. Bill? Would a configurable option work for you too?

Talenn

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

If we're talking about mobile vs static, I don't have any problem with missile dancing. That is the weakness of static defenses. Too bad if your pretty defensive bases get ripped up by missiles. Support them with ships and/or give them fighter bays.

If we're talking mobile vs mobile missile dancing, just teach the AI that if his enemy steps just into range and fires missiles, *back off* and let them miss. This would force you to close to a range in which he is unable to flee out of range of your missiles.

If we're talking mobile vs mobile beam dancing, I can understand the opportunity fure people. However, it isn't that bad. If both sides are the same speed, he cannot escape being in range when you go (unless he damages an engine). If the person jumping into range is faster, well, speed is very important. The bigger ships don't have it, so let the little guys dance with beam weapons.

Besides, this is what missiles are for. If he's beam dancing you, he's too far inside your missile envelope to escape.

Just teach the AI to get out of the way of missiles and I suspect it'll all sort itself out.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

Four comments:

1. I like the latest quick-fix suggestion by Talenn, if it is implemented in a mod-able way. I also like the opportunity-fire suggested by BB. I don't see them as mutually exclusive, and I don't see either one as open to exploitation.

2. Solely as a quick fix, missiles could be modded to do less damage, and also to be easier components to destroy. These mods would allow a player to charge missile ships (losing some of his own), pin them against the edge of the combat map, and then quickly dispatch them. That is exactly what the AI attempts to do now, and it would make the missile dance done by human players less effective.

3. The long-term solution, as I've said before in other topics, and will say again here: Missiles should not always hit. They are supposed to be CAPITAL ship missiles, so they should have problems hitting an escort. A miss shouldn't destroy the missile though. It should just overshoot the target by one space, then proceed normally. That would reward missile ships for firing at less than max range. (You wouldn't want to do #2 if this were done. In fact, you might even want to increase their damage done.)

4. A long-term solution that would help the AI with all combats would be to give it a small look-ahead ability like chess or checkers programs have. Even one turn would be a huge improvement. And it would vastly improve strategic/auto combat as well, so it would actually speed up the combat part of the game, despite the extra CPU time req'd.

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

[quote]Originally posted by God Emperor:
[b]Will upload them into the Mod Archive when I get home from work in about 7 hrs time.[b][quote]

Much thanks Emperor. Got it. Can't wait to try it and some Hredeek's Suggestions.
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'
 

No matter how tactical combat is changed I don't think you will ever make it "fair". One side or the other will always have an advantage, this is why we experiment with new ship designs.
The only thing that shoud be done, IMO, is to make changes that help make tactical combat more interesting and fun or correct an obvious error in the way it is handled.
The missle dance etc. does not seem to make much sense but firing out of your opponents range makes perfect sense.
Of the ideas suggested I like the loss of movement points for firing the best. It seems reasonable and maybe not to difficult to implement.