A better system for combat
 

Pondering the plight of many battles in PBW I have formulated a plan for fairer battles to take place without (I hope) moving too far away from the way its currently done.

My gripe - One player moves all his ships, then the other and so on. Some people are aware (and I am too now) that fighting on a warp point heavily advantages the player with the lower number (coz he always goes first).

My alternative - Player 1 moves 1 ship, Player 2 moves 1 ship, Player 1 then moves another ship and so on until all the ships are moved.
Obviously there are advantages to moving some ships first (ie the ones with all the guns) so to compensate for this there could be another list in the strategies page similiar to the target priorities.
ie. Ship movement priority.
Has Weapons,
Nearest, (to enemy)
Biggest,
Baddest,
Meanest,
Worst Paint Job

It could also mean a smaller fleet might be more capable of doing some damage.
So what you guys think? A better way or what?

Askan
Intergalactic Despot

Re: A better system for combat
 

Would it not be simplier to just randomize the player order in combat?

Re: A better system for combat
 

Randomising the player order will still mean that at a warp point battle one player always gets slaughtered.
The battles are all or nothing, I'de rather it a bit more balanced.

Askan

Re: A better system for combat
 

IMO we need a system like Moo2. Individual 'ship initative', each ship has a base initative (sp?) decided on by ship size and speed (ie, smaller, more maneuverable goes 'first'), and then and experience bonus is added to this number, finally a random number is added to the mix, the ships then go by this number for combat initative...

Kinda like the old Dungeons and Dragons system of 'who goes first'...Everyone had a number decided by rolling a 10 sided dice and then adding in their 'Dexterity' bonus, whoever had the 'highest' number went first, with ties going at the 'same' time and damage being applied at the 'end of the round'....

Anyone else think this is a good idea? (Just thinking though, the 'defender' of a position <wormhole/planet owned by defender etc> should get a bonus to going first, just like a 'cloaked' ship should get a bonus to going first, other components could also add to the 'number game' like the 'neural net' or 'combat sensors'.....)

------------------
"We are all...the sum of our scars"....(paraphrased) Matt. R. Stover-'Blade of Tyshalle'.

"Human existance is all imagination...Reality is no more than a simple agreement among its participants that this is where we shall meet, and these are the rules that we shall abide by."- Kevin McCarthy/David Silva "The Family:Special Effects"..

Re: A better system for combat
 

Deathstalker,

The system that you are proposing, works well with many games including "fleet" type combat.

Definitely agree with you that ships defending warp points should get a first fire turn (maybe more than one turn, depending on the chatacteristics of a warp point). Also with cloaked ships, unless detected. Some of the other space 4E games have already incorporated this (including some games that were developed on the same scale as SEIV).

What about the idea of having fleet initiative as well or instead of individual ship initiative. This may be easier to implement and could give definitive advantages to ships in fleets. If MM ever adopts a method of having fleet admirals in the game, this could also tie nicely.

------------------
In difficult ground, press-on;
In encircled ground, devise stratagems;
In death ground, fight.
Sun Tzu (circa 400 B.C.)

Re: A better system for combat
 

Not only for simplicities sake I would most prefer a 50/50 chance of "who goes first".

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR> Randomising the player order will still mean that at a warp point battle one player always gets slaughtered.
The battles are all or nothing, I'de rather it a bit more balanced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO "all or nothing" is good, especially if it is just a simple 50/50 chance of "who goes first" (see a more detailed system below). You'd really have to take your chances.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>IMO we need a system like Moo2. Individual 'ship initative', each ship has a base initative (sp?) decided on by ship size and speed (ie, smaller, more maneuverable goes 'first'), and then and experience bonus is added to this number, finally a random number is added to the mix, the ships then go by this number for combat initative...

Kinda like the old Dungeons and Dragons system of 'who goes first'...Everyone had a number decided by rolling a 10 sided dice and then adding in their 'Dexterity' bonus, whoever had the 'highest' number went first, with ties going at the 'same' time and damage being applied at the 'end of the round'.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Individual ship initiative is a good idea, but would probably complicate things too much. It would be okay in strategic combat, but when you think about tactical hotseat, it is going to be a big PITA. I am playing the devil's advocate here, but individual ship initiative sounds like SE5 to me. BTW, what's the point of initiative, if damage is applied at the end of the round? Oh wait, this is just for ties, right? Doh, I got it.

So let us just assume that initiative is applied to whole fleets (or better ships/units/bases in the same sector) rather than individual ships, what modifiers would be good to apply? (from my POV).
While it makes sense that more experienced ships are likely to go first, I don't like it very much. Fleet experience and combat bonuses are already very powerful (perhaps too powerful, but that is another issue). I have seen whole fleets being destroyed only by a handful of legendary ships. Giving veterans an initiative bonus would make them even harder to defeat. The point is: If your ships are more experienced, they are already less likely to be hit. Let's give the underdog a break, so he can at least launch his seekers before being blown to bits http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif.
Ship sizes would be okay and easy to apply. Biggest ship in the fleet determines the "bulk" of the whole fleet with modifiers of +5/-5 (or even +10/-10) per ship size. Example: the basic chance of going first is 50/50. If a fleet of Destroyers and Light Cruisers meets a battleship that is being escorted by frigates, the chance of going first would change from 50/50 to 65/35 (LC vs. BB: 3 ships sizes * +5/-5). The escorting DS and FG do not play a role, because the biggest ship counts for the bulk. To include bases and units in this system: A) I would make bases less bulky than ships. Space Stations (500kt) would have the same bulk as LC, Battle Station (1500kt) same bulk as BC, and Starbases (2500kt) same bulk as dreadnoughts. B) units (fighters and satellites) go always first [edit] or (maybe better) count as one or two ship sizes below escorts [/edit]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Anyone else think this is a good idea? (Just thinking though, the 'defender' of a position &lt;wormhole/planet owned by defender etc&gt; should get a bonus to going first, just like a 'cloaked' ship should get a bonus to going first, other components could also add to the 'number game' like the 'neural net' or 'combat sensors'.....)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have seen this argument before of the defender getting a bonus or even defender going always first. Personally I would like it to see it the other way around, because that would encourage aggressiveness. Explaining this would really depend on how you see warp point travel. Is the warp point sending out some forewarning (as seen on TV) or is the attacker able to predict his ETA (emerging from the wormhole) and catch the defender by surprise. Even if the defender is lying in wait you could reason that he would not be on battle alert (keeping shields and weapons charged) at all time, while the attacker knows that a battle is coming up pretty soon...
For the same reasons as experience I wouldn't like combat sensors to get initiative bonuses as well. Being able to hit better, doesn't mean you'll go first. The only component I would be comfortable with getting bonuses is sensors (you know, Hyper Optics and such) with +5/-5 for each sensor level better than the enemies. And of course only one component per fleet being effective. So if I have Hyper Optics III on one of my ships and the enemy only Gravitic Sensors I, I would get a +10 on going first.

Hmm, now that I have written this, I like the "bulk system" (with the +5/-5 per ship size) better than a simple 50/50. Perhaps with another +5 to the attacker and the sensors modifiers (not necessarily).

Just my 0.02. I would like to hear your opinions. Feel free to tell me that my idea is complete BS (and I don't mean Battle Station http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif).

Rollo

[This message has been edited by Rollo (edited 11 October 2001).]

Re: A better system for combat
 

I would say that a fleet initative would be a better idea than haveing anyone "always go first" even on warp points. If an individual ship was given an initative then maybe the fleet's initative could be the average with the larger ships haveing lower (big, bulky) and the smaller ones haveing higher initative(small, more manuverable). Also it would be advisable to use the number of engines to add into this factor. This would give players some incentive to build the smaller ships later on in the game. Unfortunately, I don't think the AI could handle that.

Re: A better system for combat
 

Alternate idea: Simultaneous combat resolution. Fleet A moves, Fleet B moves, Fleet A assigns targets, Fleet B assigns targets, Resolve attacks and damage.

The perks of such a system is that everyone gets to fire. It also eliminates much of the micro-management of tactical combat. Currently, it is far too easy to dodge in and out of your enemy's maximum weapon range or walk your firepower down a line of enemy units scoring just enough to cripple or destroy the enemy, one ship at a time.
--
TAZ

Re: A better system for combat
 

Just one problem with that, how would you dictate movement? If you were not currently in range but would be after the turn was comenced it would be wasted fire. On the other hand if a ship moved out of what would have been in normal range you would also have wasted your shots. It could work but the system would turn out worse than what we have now.

Re: A better system for combat
 

The simultaneous resoltion of movement and combat firing should include oportunity fire or just like we have target priorities, we could have target fire priorities like:

Fire at range 'x'
Fire at max weapon range
Fire at max damage range
Fire on command (manual)

Then ships would automatically fire based on these rules.

------------------
In difficult ground, press-on;
In encircled ground, devise stratagems;
In death ground, fight.
Sun Tzu (circa 400 B.C.)

Re: A better system for combat
 

All said and good, perhaps the simultaneous way would work but it still doesn't solve the problem. No matter what someone is going to have to shoot first, there by makeing it unfair to someone. If we were to get malfador to implement the initiative plan at least there would be some standard to go by.

Re: A better system for combat
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>BTW, what's the point of initiative, if damage is applied at the end of the round?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Movement order is still important, especially when ranged weapons are involved. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I have seen this argument before of the defender getting a bonus or even defender going always first. Personally I would like it to see it the other way around, because that would encourage aggressiveness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ideally, the advantage would be implemented in a way that could be modded to match individual opinions. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Alternate idea: Simultaneous combat resolution. Fleet A moves, Fleet B moves, Fleet A assigns targets, Fleet B assigns targets, Resolve attacks and damage.

Just one problem with that, how would you dictate movement? If you were not currently in range but would be after the turn was comenced it would be wasted fire. On the other hand if a ship moved out of what would have been in normal range you would also have wasted your shots.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That could be fixed with a more complex sequence: Some of A's ships fire, some of B's fire, A moves, B moves, rest of A fires, rest of B fires. With simultaneous resolution you could even have opportunity fire.

This kind of problem has already been addressed in tabletop (i.e. non-computer) wargames; one could look at them to see what works and what doesn't.


------------------
Cap'n Q
My first mod! Hypermaze quadrant
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Re: A better system for combat
 

Most wargames introduce Opportunity fire either by the defender interrupting movement with an announcement or deferring opportunity fire until the defender is done moving. If a computer generated combat were to interrupt movement, we would have to specify parameters such as what targets to fire at and at what range. It could get complicated.

I would suggest eliminating the range darting issues by having all fire at the end of both players movement and conducted simultaneously. That would allow range advantage to only be countered by a mobility advantaged. An enemy with longer range and greater mobility should always win unless you can push him into some barrier (which there should not be in space, but that is another issue).

As others have suggest, the quick solution is to eliminate the ordinal advantage with one of the following: Randomized Side Order (can be race or component factors or 50/50, either would be an improvement), Defender always goes first or has a higher chance of going first(but that might stagnate the game), Attacker always goes first or has a higher chance.

How about giving computer controled ships a higher initiative factor because they respond quicker. Of course, one good Null Space hit on the computer and they should stop firing unless one of the other crew components still exists (Life Support, Crew Quarter, or Bridge).

Alternating ships would be a rather major engine change and to use the same engine for tactical mode he would need to mark moved versus unmoved somehow. It would be better than alternating entire players sides.

Simultaneous plotting and fire would be a full rewrite and not something that could be done quickly, I would think.

I am Last in a current PBW game and I only win at warp points if I overwhelm them or if my enemy cannot hit because of to hit modifiers. I have to defend one off the warp points and intercept anyone coming through (unless they lure back through the warp point, then I am burned). My main advesary knows he wins at warp points if we have equal forces. I will not start any more games until initiative issue is fixed.

Re: A better system for combat
 

I have been trying to convince Aaron to alternate ship movement and firing between opponents for sometime. Especially during Beta. No success so far....argh

IMO- Initiative is too complicated to introduce now that the game is released and the MOO2 system doesnt really work for SE. There are too many variables can be introduced to SE4 with custom techs. Moo2 wasnt customizable so setting up intiative based on weapon types and movement speeds worked.

I think the easiest way to integrate this into the game is allow the attacker first move , first shot but alternate ship moves and ship firing between the opposing fleets/ships. maybe it could work as follows:

All ships move - player 1 , player 2 until all ships/units have moved
then move to firing sequence player 1 then player 2 until all ships have fired



[This message has been edited by AJC (edited 11 October 2001).]

Re: A better system for combat
 

While I will happily agree that the combat system could use some modification, I have never seen a "one of mine goes, then one of yours goes" system that doesn't a) bog down and b) end up with its' own problems - like the barrage of units at the end of the turn when one side outnumbers the other significantly.

An initiative system based on indivdiual ships (when not in fleets) and fleets would be interesting. A random seed would be set for each individual ship, and one for each fleet. Each ship which is not in a fleet could be a "manuever element" and each fleet would be one.

Each ship or fleet would add it's experience rating to the seed, and maybe if there were race traits for initiative, those could be added/subtracted as well. Then, in order, each element performs an action set.

This would combine the "balance" of "one of yours/one of mine", but would tip that balance in favor of the units with better initiative. So it may be that two or three of yours go, then one or two of mine, based on the initiative scores each turn. I would keep fleet initiative as well, but enforce that only the fleet leader can be selected for movement, and the other members hold formation. That gives the fleet a huge firepower advantage when it activates, but removes the temptation/allowance for each ship in the fleet to move individually and separately. One of the cheats (IMHO) that used in tactical against the AI was to move my fleet members where I wanted them, typically burning all of their movement, THEN move the fleet leader so that they don't stay in a formation that I don't like (this was way back when there were fewer formations available).

This gives an incentive to operate in fleets, but allows flexibility if you don't. And gives individual ships more tactical freedom.

Just another opinion, and worth what you paid for it. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

General John

Re: A better system for combat
 

Not sure why initiative would be too complicated to implement. Stars another one of those space 4E games that has been out for a long time has initiative built in.

Different components can have an initiative modifier that is cumulative per ship.
Example:
Ion Engine I: 1 point
Jacketed Photon Engine I: 3 points
Bridge I: 1 point
Auxillary BridgeI: 1 point
Master computer I: 1 point
Depleted Uranium Cannon: 3 points (total regardless of the number)
Anti-matter torpedo: 1 point total regardless of the number)

Therefore faster ships would have higher initiative. Ships with shorter range weapons that do not require longer targeting times like the DUC vs Torpedo will have higher initiative.

Ship size initiative can use the number of engines, or a separate modifier.

Ship 1
6 ion I 6 points
Bridge I 1 point
3 DUC I 3 points
total 10 points

Ship 2:
6 ion I 6 points
Bridge I 1 point
2 anti-matter torpedos 1 point
total 8 points

Therefore ship 1 goes first.

I know this is a simple example, but could work.

------------------
In difficult ground, press-on;
In encircled ground, devise stratagems;
In death ground, fight.
Sun Tzu (circa 400 B.C.)

Re: A better system for combat
 

I agree - some good ideas here. There have been a number of similar threads over the past 11 months. I believe most of the gamers (PBEM and single player) would like some sort of initiative-based system ala MOO2 or otherwise. All I can say is MM listens to the masses so everyone who wants it must e-mail him the request. Even if you e-mailed him 6 months ago about it, do it again - now.

[This message has been edited by Tampa_Gamer (edited 11 October 2001).]

Re: A better system for combat
 

I like it. I have sent soemthing like it earlier in the week to Aaron as a suggestion. Hopefully it's something he can work into this patch.

Geoschmo

Re: A better system for combat
 

It might have been easier in Stars! if the latter did not allow custom tech trees.

Here, retrofitting initiative at the level of individual components would be, er, tricky. And what if components get damaged during combat, or if a ship has different weapons, some of which are considered fast and others slow?

Hmmm. More complication could be tolerated if the interface becomes simpler, such as the AI picking all targets and when to fire -- IOW, user intervention (and thus, constant interruption) wouldn't be as much of an issue. Plot courses, give some hints perhaps (targetting priorities, say), and then the system executes for some number of rounds.

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

Re: A better system for combat
 

I would like to see an intiative system too, I just wonder how it would respond to the many different custom tech trees..and how much work it would take to do it right..But better than nothing would be alternating firing and moves...which is probably relatively simple to implement.

[This message has been edited by AJC (edited 12 October 2001).]

Re: A better system for combat
 

I don't see how tech trees complicate matters. I mean look at the combat attack / defence modifiers: They are calculated battle by battle according to a combination of hull ability, racial bonuses, ship experience, fleet experience and researchable components - exactly what we are proposing for initiative - and that works fine.

Sure, it would probably require a major re-write to many parts of the game, but I should think much of it could be copy/ pasted from the code which controls the other combat modifiers.

------------------
SE4 Code:
L GdY $ Fr- C- Sd T!+ Sf-- Tcp-- A% M&gt;M+ MpD! RV Pw Fq+ Nd- Rp+ G-
/SE4 Code
Go to my meagre SEIV pages to generate your own code.

Re: A better system for combat
 

Just to complicate the issue further: http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Would the very rare case when there's more than two empires involved in a battle affect how an initiative syatem worked?

------------------
Cap'n Q
My first mod! Hypermaze quadrant
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the
human mind to correlate all of its contents. We live on a placid
island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was
not meant that we should go far. -- HP Lovecraft, "The Call of Cthulhu"

Re: A better system for combat
 

Just chipping in my 'vision' for a system of combat initative: (highest number goes first, if there is a tie then both ships go at the same time with damage being applied to both ships at the end of their movement phase):

Hard Code Modifications: Add a line to ALL components in components.txt, line goes like this 'Combat initative modifier' (like the 'to hit' % modifier), this number can be both POSITIVE and NEGATIVE. Add a similar line to the CompEnhancement.txt for weapon mounts. This way people can modd the numbers to be what they want, include an ability in the abilities.txt (think that is what it is called, where the system abilities etc is stored) that contains a random number entry, where the user can also modd. Include a start and a finish, positive and negative numbers. (ie, random combat initive number: -10 to 20, or -1 to 5, etc)

The Numbers : (will be using -2 to +6, with a random 0 to 6 added to initative).Remember highest goes first.

Ship Initative:
Escort:6
Frigate:5
Destroyer:4
Light Cruiser:3
Cruiser:2
Battle Cruiser:1
Battle Ship:0
Dreatnought:-1
BaseShip:-2
Carrier:1
Transport Class: 0
Colonizer Class:-1

Engine Bonus:, +1 per engine, with an additional +1 for each engine 'level' (not tech level, but the different engine levels, ie, Ion, Conterra, Photon etc).

Component Bonus: Combat Sensors+1/level to +3, Combat ECM(?) +1/level to +3, Master Computer, +1/level to +3, Solar Sail -1 (big, unwieldy), Solar Collectors(?) -1 (big, unwieldy), Religious Talisman +2, Psychic Sensors +1 lev to +3, Hyper Optics +1/level to +3, Grav Sensors +1/level to +3 etc.

This would be the base of it, with a random 0 to 6 added, highest number goes first.

Example:

2Frigates, with 6 engines each (contra Terr level, +2 bonus), combat sensors I and Master Computers I. Total Initative is 14 + 0 to 6.

vs. 1 Dreadnought: 2 engines (Photon level, +3 bonus), Talisman, Combat ECM I, Hyper Optics I, Master Computer II. Total Initative is 10 plus 0 to 6.


The Dreadnought in this example can still go first, all it has to do is get a random combat initative number result of 5 or 6, and the Frigates 'roll' a result of 0 or 1.


Thoughts???? http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif

[This message has been edited by Deathstalker (edited 13 October 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Deathstalker (edited 13 October 2001).]

Re: A better system for combat
 

All of this looks great and fine... on the other hand I think the most simple solution is to simply make it so that warp point combat order isn't based on player number position and is just random. Simple, easy, and it gets rid of the problem that people are griping about as being totally unfair for one side over another. Sure initiative etc would be great and all... but at this point I see it as being alot of work that isn't necessary to fix the basic problem.

Major Problem = One side always disadvantaged to another in Warp Point combat.

Major Solution = Make it so that one side is not always disadvantaged to another in Warp Point combat.

Minor Problem = Make it so that NO combat is ever in any combat disadvantaged based on who goes first IE: No one side wipes out another before it can move despite having equal forces.

Minor Solution = Totally rewrite the existing combat system in such a way that initiative either on a fleet basis or a ship by ship basis that is based on a large number of possibilities ranging from ship size and fleet experience to components and scanner differences in a way that no one seems to really agree on cept that it should be different.

Looked at this way I think we should leave the "Minor" problem as I have dubbed it for a sequel and just get the major problem outa the way.

*edit*

Like to add that I have worked on stuff like this and in general when the people using it all suggest a different solution the first thing that pops to mind is the problem can't be that bad because they arn't united in an effort to fix it. This isn't always true but I tend to think if the players can't agree on a change then odds are its pretty ballanced. EXAMPLE: RPG type MUD system where fighters whine that clerics are too strong and Clerics say that mages are too strong and mages say thieves are too strong and thieves say fighters are too strong. My conclusion: None of them are too strong and they ballance out so leave it alone. Now if everyone comes out and says "Fighters are too strong" I see a tendancy to look into it and see the problem and fix it. Thus if everyone is fighting for a change that they can't agree on it is less likely to be changed at all.

*second edit*

So lets all just focus on getting rid of player order combat starts and then once that is done we can all get back to posting our ideas that really are super great and better than *his/hers* until one of us wins. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

[This message has been edited by Cyrien (edited 13 October 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Cyrien (edited 13 October 2001).]

Re: A better system for combat
 

Simplest solution. Defender always goes first. Often a smaller empires only defense is to guard a warp point so as to get that first volley off. It forces the attacker to attack with a larger force. In real life the defender almost always has the advantage. In fleet engagements away from warpoints it doesnt matter much since you have no way of knowing which side will close range first and open fire. (I have simmed this [who will fire first] many times with equal forces. The side that fires first has the advantage but it could be either force that is fighting.)

Harder solution. All ships target/fire after both sides move and all damage happens at the end of the combat round.

The only problem with init that I see. Is it will tend to help the player thats ahead anyway most of the time. If he has got the ships/fleets he most likely will have the tech.

Re: A better system for combat
 

I'm going to stand by my original post and say that a simple random order would work best givien the situation.

It's obvious that the time of major changes is past in SE4, we'll have to wait for SE5. Randomizing the order should be trivially easy from a programming standpoint. This sounds like something that could happen.

I like the other ideas, but I think that it would just require too much work.

Re: A better system for combat
 

President Delerith
Private First Class posted 14 October 2001 12:31

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another option to the unfair warp combats is considering the surroundings of the WP unstable for a fleet to stand there. Therefore a fleet standing on a WP should start the combat on a border of the sector and no instant combat will occur.
However I would prefer combat order randomized on each combat.

pustov= I think that this the best fix for the game right now

Re: A better system for combat
 

Note that if the defenders start at the edge of the combat map, sattelites will be useless in WP sectors.

Re: A better system for combat
 

I think warp point combat should go like this: The defending force should have the advantage. They would be able to detect vessels moving through the warp point and be able to attack as soon as the invaders emerged...

In other forms of combat, I would have the defenders gain the advantage when defending a planet (i.e. first move) and the attackers to have the advantage against defenders when they attack while cloaked. For other regular situations, It should be random - sometimes the attacker will go first and other times, the defenders will get the first move...

------------------
"Reality is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there."

Re: A better system for combat
 

Keep sattlelight and mines at the wp and ships at the edge of the map. How about that!

Re: A better system for combat
 

Splitting up the defenders will not help the original problem, which was that player #1 always got to fire first.

In that case, it would be very unbalanced if player 1 was attacking, since he could hit the sats before they fire AND not have to worry about fighting the defender's ships for at least ten turns.

Re: A better system for combat
 

How about just letting the attacker fire first since they are the ones initiating the battle.

Re: A better system for combat
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Posted by: suicide_junkie.
Note that if the defenders start at the edge of the combat map, sattelites will be useless in WP sectors.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sattelites will be as useless as they are in open space. In fact my idea will transform WP combat in nearly open space combat (only changing starting positions). I don't like my idea. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...s/confused.gif

Re: A better system for combat
 

I like the idea of defenders going first, defenders being the ones who sit still on the warppoint, attackers the ones who try to break through. I also like the idea of simply separateing the fleets and make each fleet start at opposite ends of the combat screen.
I hate the solution of random decisions on who goes first. It would make my military victories/losses MUCH more dependant on luck, and not on skill/ship design.

Re: A better system for combat
 

If the defender mines damage any of the attacking fleet then the defender sattelites will be there to fire first. And If there are any survivors? the attacker has time to split Its fleet to any corner of the map and at least save a part of It.

[This message has been edited by Pustov (edited 14 October 2001).]

Re: A better system for combat
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dragonlord:
(snip) I also like the idea of simply separateing the fleets and make each fleet start at opposite ends of the combat screen.(snip)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes! This is a great idea. Probably the easiest by far to code is my guess. I mean the game has to place the ships somewhere. Just make it place them on opposite sides of the sector the way it does for normal combat instead of crammed in the center.

We just realign the way we think about warp points. Instead of being a tiny point in space they are a large area that is the size of a sector. Makes sense kind of.

Geoschmo

Re: A better system for combat
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>We just realign the way we think about warp points. Instead of being a tiny point in space they are a large area that is the size of a sector. Makes sense kind of.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What about WP stacks?
I'm with the defender going first, since they're "entrenched" already.

But if there are multiple races going at it on a WP sector, then there is a twist. You'd have to come up with a new list of players every time, and plot who moves when.
Shouldn't be too hard to make lists of 20 players for each combat, though, and once we have that, we can make up any rules we want for who goes first.

Who moves when could depend on Aggressiveness/Defensiveness traits, specialized components (with new hardcode abilities), cloak status, "From" sector type (did they pop out of a sensor obscuring storm?), used-up fleet movement (how many days have we been watching them approach?).

Re: A better system for combat
 

Another option to the unfair warp combats is considering the surroundings of the WP unstable for a fleet to stand there. Therefore a fleet standing on a WP should start the combat on a border of the sector and no instant combat will occur.

However I would prefer combat order randomized on each combat.

Re: A better system for combat
 

delete

[This message has been edited by AJC (edited 18 October 2001).]