IMPORTANT fixes, take 2
 

Since my previous thread went off on a tangent I'll try again.
I consider important the bugs that affect play balance in multiplayer. I.e. not AI being dumb.

1) Counter Intelligence was fixed in 1.42 but is Intelligence is probably still too powefull. Maybe changing it so any project will have a failure probability equal to how much CI was invested against it relative to it's cost.

2) Possibilities of abusing wormhole manipulation still exist (10 holes limit, surprise attack)

3) Generating supplies by way of starbases/fighters still exist, cannot reuse emergency supply pods without shipyard, but you can always bring one with you.

4) Very important IMO and mostly overlooked is the battle order being fixed by player ordering in game setup, so the same player always goes first in every battle, giving him a constant advantage, this is very unbalanced.

I hope the beta testers can point out these issues so they can be deal with in 1.43 .

Re: IMPORTANT fixes, take 2
 

Regarding wormholes:
I wonder if it would be possible to change the program (hard code change) so that they are created gradually. First they'd be small and unstable, not letting big ships through at all and doing damage to ships that pass through. Then they'd get to small and stable, then medium and unstable, then medium and stable, and so on. Each increase would require use of an "OpenWarpPoint" component. Similarly, any decrease would require use of a "CloseWarpPoint" component. This would still allow for small-scale surprise attacks, but would make it very difficult to launch a full assault using one's biggest ships. (Because to do the latter you would need to use 6 "OpenWarpPoint" components in 1 turn.) Plus, it wouldn't be so easy to close the warp point that you just launched your attack through, thus making you vulnerable to a counter-attack.

Re: IMPORTANT fixes, take 2
 

#1 can be fixed, or at Last compensated for, by adjusting the 'Intelligence Defense Modifier' in settings.txt -- setting it higher will give the defender more ability to counter-act the attacker.

Intelligence Defense Modifier Percent := 120

#2 I agree that wormholes are a bit too quick to create and destroy. Even a single turn's delay would make this much more realistic. Add a new graphic image for a "forming/closing wormhole" and put a message in the log just like a naturally opening/closing wormhole. The same goes for many other stellar manipulations, you know. A planet should not just 'snap together' like an erector set. It ought to take a few turns to stabilize and be habitable. And even Star Destroyers ought to have a delay, though that would ruin the ultimate kamikaze tactic that so many people like to use them for.

#3 is not a problem. Packing a repair bay in a cruiser is not too difficult. Packing a space yard in a cruiser leaves room for nothing else. The price for the 'use emergency pods and then repair them' is far higher this way. Sure, you can have one ship with the space yard and it can repair the emergency pods on the other ships. That's what fleets are for, combining the resources and abilities of ships.

#4 is only a partial description of the real problem. The real problem is the "I go, you go" model of combat. This will always be unfair. Real time would be a pain in the ### to program and we purists would probably hate it. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif An 'impulse' based combat system where you plot out the movement of your ships and then let the next guy plot his before executing the turn looks to be the way to go. The turn would then be broken up into many smaller turns and ships would move or fire incrementally based on their 'initiative' as a whole and the 'initiative' of components such as individual weapon systems.

[This message has been edited by Baron Munchausen (edited 20 September 2001).]

Re: IMPORTANT fixes, take 2
 

#4 A quick temporary fix to the movement and combat order problem would be to randomly determine the order of movement so that the players with low ordinal positions do not consistently have an advantage in movement and combat.

I am Last ordinal in a PBW game and it really hurts that I always fire Last when people come through warp points and I always fire Last when I come through warppoints. In races to defend planets they get wipped out before my ships get there.

Even an incremental system will be unfair if the lower ordinal players can fire first everytime in the first impulse. Warppoint defenses are key positions and who fires first is critical in those battles. It might be nice to have some sort of random inititive that can be modified by a racial trait (Initiative = Random 1-100 + Racial Attack Bonus + Highest Fleet Experience present). Maybe add +20 if defending a warp point.

If simultaneous movement is harder to resolve than simultaneous firing, another option would be to have 3 overall phases: 1) Combat before Movement, 2) Movement of ships in random order, 3) Combat after Movememnt for ships that did not fire in step 1.

Besides mattering when coming through warp points, first movement is also critical when pursing fleets. If you attack a fleet and come from the same sector you start on the same side of the map or the same corner. In that case first fire is also critical. Again, giving a lower ordinal player an advantage really ruins the competitive nature of the game.

I have not identified any advantages in simultaneous play in being higher in ordinal position, just disadvantages.

Re: IMPORTANT fixes, take 2
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If simultaneous movement is harder to resolve than simultaneous firing, another option would be to have 3 overall phases: 1) Combat before Movement, 2) Movement of ships in random order, 3) Combat after Movememnt for ships that did not fire in step 1.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Make #3, "Combat after Movemement for ships with weapons that did not fire in step 1."

Re: IMPORTANT fixes, take 2
 

Satellites:

I wish MM would fix the positions of Sats in TacCom.
All Sats are in one field - it s easy to outmanouver them and attack the planet without the Sats can shoot at you.

I would be fine if the number of Sats are evenly splitted and put around the planet.

Then there is also no need to increase the range of Sats to strengthen the defense ones and if they can shoot at your ships not all of them can fire at one time.

Re: IMPORTANT fixes, take 2
 

Satellites:

I wish MM would fix the positions of Sats in TacCom.
All Sats are in one field - it s easy to outmanouver them and attack the planet without the Sats can shoot at you.

I would be fine if the number of Sats are evenly splitted and put around the planet.

Then there is also no need to increase the range of Sats to strengthen the defense ones and if they can shoot at your ships not all of them can fire at one time.

Re: IMPORTANT fixes, take 2
 

I could live with random ship-based initiative. It still feels pretty odd for an entire armada to act before the other one, since I always played MOO2 with ship initiative on...

On satellites... maybe if they got a combat movement of 1. That's not fast enough for them to chase ships around, usually... so it might not be that much of a problem. A better hack would be a free movement point between two squares adjacent to a planet or moon, which would require a weird bit of hardcoding.

One fix that would be nice, at least for those of us who aren't always genocidal conquerors, would be AIs that are more amenable to accepting gifts and clearly beneficial treaty upgrades (for instance, I'm not quite sure why an AI that's currently subjugated would refuse a trade treaty...).

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

Re: IMPORTANT fixes, take 2
 

I agree Taqwus all the way,It still feels pretty odd for an entire armada to act before the other one.Maybe a idea like, maybe a componet say like overtruster or somthing, would give intiative to a single ships, and increase teck in this for more. This would make it more realistic?. A commit On satellites... maybe if they got a combat movement of 1. Reply; Sounds good, how about sats that move 1, but only around a object like planets moons etc.

[This message has been edited by HEMAN (edited 22 September 2001).]

Re: IMPORTANT fixes, take 2
 

OR just place the sat's on top of the planet.

That way they can act from what ever direction the enemy is coming.

For movement.

I have no suggestions.

From a pbem perspective combat is flawed anyways.
I like the initive idea.
based on more than shipmovement.

Should be experience, surprise, location etc...
Kind of like the AD&D system or something
1 determine if any one is surprised first then figure out what bonus each gets based on this calculation then do the rest of the calculations.

Then do 2 every turn until the end of battle.

Or something like that.

------------------
L? GdX $ Fr C++ SdT T+ Sf* Tcp+ A M++ MpTM ROTS Pw+ Fq+ Nd Rp++ G+

Re: IMPORTANT fixes, take 2
 

To make things even more complex :-)
Why not add a ship readiness state like Starfire. Ships at general quarters cost a lot more to maintain than ships at lower readiness states but their reaction to enemy ships will be faster. You can have that vast fleet you wanted, but if they go into combat your economy collapses....... :-)

On warp point assaults: The ships coming through will know they're going to go into combat, the ships + stations defending don't know they're about to enter combat, so unless there's a technobabble explaination why a warping ship shouldn't fire first, the attacker should always have the initiative.
In a planetary assault or fleet engagement, both sides can see each other from a fair distance so initiative could be randomised.

Sats are automated systems, so maybe they should always get initiative. Either allowing them movement or evenly distributing them in 4 Groups at the squares adjacent to the planet/WP pictures corners would allow for them to be useful?

Re: IMPORTANT fixes, take 2
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>so unless there's a technobabble explaination why a warping ship shouldn't fire first, the attacker should always have the initiative.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually I am of the opposite opinion, and I don't think it's technobabble.

I think initiative should go to the forces waiting at the end of the wormhole because they know precisly which direction the other ships are coming from. The "attackers" coming through the wormhole have to locate the enemy and bring weapons to bear upon re-entering real space.

Even if you don't know exactly when the enemies is going to pop out, if you have your gun out and pointed in the direction he is coming from, it takes less time for you to pull the trigger than it does for him to find you and then shoot back. IMHO

Geoschmo

Re: IMPORTANT fixes, take 2
 

I also still feel something needs to be done about combat. The 1 side moves and fires all ships rule is very unbalancing. Movement and defensive PDC fire can be left alone , and I think it could be left alone that the attacker has the initiative

Since introducing a initiative system would be a massive change Just implement alternate firing between attacker and defender.

In tactical mode each player can choose which unit / ship, base or planet will fire on his turn for firing.

In strategic, All firing could alternate between attacker/defender:
1.Fighter stacks fire - until all fighters on both sides have fired.
2. ships fire with firing sequence based on the current position a ship holds in the fleet set up i.e. Lead ship fires - then position 1,2,3 etc... , until all ships on both sides have fired
3. satellites fire, until all satellites on both sides have fired
4. bases fire , until all bases on both sides have fired
5. planets fire until all planets on both sides have fired.

Re: IMPORTANT fixes, take 2
 

That would be a real mess for a hotseat game, AJC. Can you imagine having to swap seats 5 or 6 times for each round of combat? With the impulse system, you would sit down and plot the movement of your units just like you plot movement in simultaneous turns. So, you'd only have to swap seats once per turn as it is currently done.