Combat Mechanics
 

Ideas for combat/movement system. At a time when Off Topic, became Topic!!! :doh:

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Well since the ball is rolling.

I think some sort of ship orders system would be nice.

Attack Close - Vessel(s) will close to shortest range.

Attack Standoff - Vessel(s) will stay at long range from target.

Attack Vessel Type - This type of order means your ships will attack a certainly type of enemy ship and ignore others (e.g. go for the carriers)

Screen - Vessel(s) will always place themselves between the enemy and the fleet they are screening

Disengage - Vessel(s) will try and avoid combat and withdraw at the earliest opportunity.


I'm sure there are heaps of possible orders these are just some off the top of my head. I'm guessing that since the game is play by email battles would be resolved using some formula where player designs,battle orders and tactics would influence the outcome.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

One more ship/fleet order:
Stay close to ... (e.g. warp point)

What I strongly suggest is the possibility to define an initial placement of your ships and units: around colony/warp point/base.
And that the fleet/task force formation is always observed in a new combat and not just the last placement of your ships is used.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

I see what you mean Q. Perhaps there could also be a general order such as Defend Starbase and/or Screen Starbase?

It all depends on the importance of Orbital facilities.

Say for instance planetary invasion cannot commence until the Starbase is taken out would make them very important :-)

Also do we know what time scale is going to be used for turns? Does each turn represent a month or a year of real time?

Another thing I've been thinking about is multiple targetting. Say for instance my vessel has three weapons pods I have two of them set with attack standoff orders and one set with defend orders. This means two are blasting away at the enemy and one is trying to shoot incoming missiles. I don't know if will work but something to think throw into the mix.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Yes Pydna, that is a good idea: strategies not only for the entire unit/vehicle but also target priorities for individual weapons.

What is the use of shield depleting weapons against a ship without remaining shields? And perhaps I would like to wait with the use of my armor (but not shield) skipping weapons until the shields are gone.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

It's an interesting idea, but if fleets get sufficiently large I could see it turning into a MM hell of epic proportions.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

I agree with Gregstrom that sounds like MM Hell - I think SE resolved this nicely by having point defense weapons whose only function/ability was to fire on incoming missiles etc. - this affords the strategy without the Hell I think and also I believe to more realistic - you wouldn't fire on a cruise missile with a 16 inch gun etc.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Very true Jars_u, but you could also have a short range interceptor missile.

It would have a longer range than point defence but much shorter range than an Anti Ship Missile (ASM). This would would allow Ships with screening orders to shoot down inbounds that weren't necessarily targeting them.

Already there are several design strategies players could employ.

Do I build a large ship which has a mixture of point defence and interceptor missiles + ASMs and Beam Weapons??

Or do I build two classes of ship. One large ship with limited point defence, ECM and Targetting systems lots of ASMs plus a second lighter vessel which is fitted mainly with Interceptor missiles and given screening orders. Essentially you're building a Battleship and Escort class vessel.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

I think this can still be resolved with the weapon characteristics themselves without the need for independent orders for individual platforms. The greater the range of the defensive weapon the slower the rate of fire along with the corresponding size and resource consumption. This would still allow players to design role specific ships.

One of the things I wasn't crazy about in SE 4/5 was that while an abundance of weapons choices existed the differences between them were often not significant enough to justify researching one over the other. For example the point defense beam weapons and point defense cannons were fairly interchangeable.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

I think one thing the designers may want to consider is look at the effects they want to achieve.

For defence you could have the following I'm borrowing from Real Life navies.

Point Defence (short range missile interception)
Missile Interceptors (medium range missile interception)

Electronic Countmeasures (affect missiles tohit chance)
Chaff/Flares (affect missiles tohit chance)

I would suggest that given the "function" of the last three (ECM,Chaff and Flares) is the same you would just lump them as one piece of equipment (Counter Measure Systems). Now obviously you could have better grades (Grade 1, Grade 2 etc) but you get the idea.

Same goes for point defence and interceptor missiles. Again, you would have multiple grades (Point Defence 1, 2...n)

The main point is you don't get cluttered with lots of gizmos that do the same thing.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

SE4/5 modeled each of these effectively I think but my concern with weapons in general was besides the incremental upgrades (version 1, 2, etc.) some of the actual distinguishing characteristics of the weapons was to me too minimal - been a while since I played either but off the top of my head a uranium cannon, beam cannon, and meson cannon were all very similar. The meson cannon was a little lighter, the uranium cannon required you to budget for ammunition (vs energy), and the beam weapon had a slight range advantage. Torpedo weapons were always better then missiles but the variances in Torpedo's too subtle of a nuance. I don't want to have to study weapons tables (Excel spreadsheets) looking for +1/-1 calculations - just think the advantage/disadvantage of one or the other should be more well defined for building and strategy.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

One thing a friend of mine came up with (over 10 years ago) was a pen and paper space campaign/combat system.

Nothing too unusual about that except one of the neat ideas it had was players could custom design there missiles.

It was very simple I won't bother going into details unless people are interested but it was a lot of fun not only designing your ships but also designing the missiles. It added loads of depth to the combats very little in the way of extra design time.

Anyway more food for thought.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

SE4 did have missle design ;) and fighter design :) and even troop design... :up:

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

I remember drones which you could add warheads too and use like a kind of missile - but the missiles (always preferred the torpedo's myself) that you could build into a ship were more fixed from what I remember.

The biggest thing I hated about the drones was you couldn't use them like a UAV etc. and arm them with "ship" weapons - I might be recalling wrong as it has been a while since I played SE4 - but I would like in SL to have an autonomous (no crew) in-system only drone platform that would be bigger then a fighter but much smaller then even the smallest of ships.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

I don't remember if drones could carry ship weapons in SE4, but they definitely could in SE5... made 'em pretty darn powerful! ;)

Actually, I think they COULD in SE4, it's just that they were hardcoded to ram, so they wouldn't get to fire very much before they died; SE5 let you assign other strategies to your drones!

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

They had the same capabilities in SE4 Ed. They didn't have the fire rate of a ship for missles carring 'direct fire' warheads. Anti ship missles would 'Ram' and you could even put drones (like a Multi-Warhead) on the missle. Due to the three turn re-arm cycle. They weren't too effective.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Because of their superior speed on the tactical map I always found drones without any weapons or warheads were best used to blockade the worm holes/warp points. Enemy ships would just chase them around until one or the other ran out of resources.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Seems like exploitation of the AI's limited capabilities. Not much of a strategy and a waste of resources jars. If you had played with 'finite resources' [on] you wouldn't be wasting resources on such items.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Once upon a time (1998) there was a marvellous game called Decent: Freespace. In fact it was so well developed and groundbreaking that the following year (1999)Freespace 2 came out. And to the satisfaction of all space combat sim fans, it was very good. With an epic storyline worthy of a blockbuster hollywood movie for both Freespace 1 and Freespace 2. And a space combat system that looked splendid and revolutionary as far as 3d gfx went for the time. It also completely immersed gamers everywhere with titanic capital ship battles that players would engage as fighters and bombers in. I remember targetting subsystems from engines to weapons and sheilds and feeling completely immersed.

Many years later when Volition revealed it was unlikely to make the long awaited Freespace 3, it revealed the source code and invited with this move many modders and programmers into the open source Freespace community. Mods like Battlestar Galactica called Beyond the Red Line as well as the original game with updated textures is a pretty sight to behold.

What I would like to know from the makers of Star Legacy is: if a game like Freespace was possible back in 1998-99 when PC specs were fairly modest and 3d technology barely running into 2nd generation hardware, can't this game (Star Legacy) have a combat system that is as extensive and as aesthetically pleasing as Freespace? Surely a 10yr old engine can be reproduced and made for a larger scale space strategy game yes? If anything programmers can freely check the open source code for any pointers or hints on how to make space combat epic again like in the 90s. Freespace employed realistic collision detection, unlike sphere based collision detection that would merely push the fighter in the opposing direction. This little attention to detail is what set it apart. And the amazing thing that it was acheived on a tight release schedule and with budget constraints.


Even the Direct X8 game "Hegemonia:Legions of Iron" that hit in 2002 held quite a few promising features. There have been very few games that push the envelope of realism and ingenuity for space combat games. One recent addition being Nexus Jupiter Incident and its never released sequel Nexus Jupiter Incident II were to boast the most spectacular realistic models of planets and ships effects known to the genre.

I guess all in all what I am posing is the question of how difficult is it to make a beautiful looking game? Logistically speaking, if a combat space sim game more than 10yrs old! (Freespace)could do it then. Is it realistic to ask that Star Legacy look at least as good? I just hope we don't fall into it looking more like Armada 2526 where combat is concerned. This game came out in 2009 and promised to be a Total War in space. In reality it was a humble effort more suited to a 1990s release date. Don't get me wrong the gameplay is more important than gfx, but c'mon we are in 2010 now and asking for the atmospheric gamestyle and presentation ala Freespace 1998-99 offered is not so outrageous now is it? Otherwise it seems games these days have lost its soul in some strange twist where recent games of this genre look worse than games of over a decade old!!!

Peace and looking forward to a top rate combat system for Star Legacy.

PS: I ask that the programmers doing Star Legacy's combat system and gfx, take a short look at Freespace 2 open source code. You will probably find a few pleasant surprises on how to better your own amazing game. If there is a game out there that had blood sweat and tears go into it, its definitely this one.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Hey Marco, we're still figuring out how the combat system will work, but it will be a 2d environment as opposed to Descent's 3d one. (Descent was a great game, by the way. I remember the original from 2005). We'll also be using PNG images for the ships rather than 3d models, since they don't require special 3d tools for users to mod. That said however, we are attempting to create the epic feel of large scale fleet vs fleet combat actions.

The problem we're facing right now is how to get that same epic feel from a real time game into a turn-based game.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

What is the reason you choose turn based combat instead of real time?
Turn based combat IMO has the big problem of who shots first.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

No. The only thing changed in the last 10 years is technology, so even if we could say we're well equipped, our professional knowledge and talents are still not in the same league with FS2's creators, not to mention our time and budget. Also, part of the SL agenda, namely "easy modability" is a limiting factor on graphical development. 2D-ness is one of the consequences of this agenda, and there will be numerous other "sacrifices" made so more and more people (including myself) will be able to expand SL after its release, without uglifying the game too much.

My goal is to make a small step beyond SEIV, so the default graphics style still requires the skills needed to make SEIV shipsets, with a small addition of a 2D editing skill requirement.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Heh, that's actually one of the problems we're trying to overcome.

Turns are set to be processed simultaneously by the game host. When a player takes their turn, they are not actually moving ships, but giving orders to ships, which are then processed when the turn is generated. The combat system is not functional yet, and it's still subject to change.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Sounds interesting. I guess that could mean simultaneous fire, or perhaps fire order depends on ship and crew stats. Can the orders be disobeyed if, say, ships fail a morale check?

That set me off thinking about crew discipline. If gunners are ordered to hold fire until they reach optimum range, a green crew might fire early. Or maybe they could panic and take potshots at incoming missiles instead of their designated target.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Gives a greater weight to ship experience than just +2% hit chance :)

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Yeah. And you could send out green crews in emergencies - more or less competent with ship systems, but prone to making bad decisions.

Also, unique ship captains (assuming they exist) could have an effect here - you could have Kirk types who have amazing stats but are prone to going off and doing their own thing.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Well then may I suggest going the route of small budget space combat 2d realtime strategy game Hey Marco, we're still figuring out how the combat system will work, but it will be a 2d environment as opposed to Descent's 3d one. (Descent was a great game, by the way. I remember the original from 2005). We'll also be using PNG images for the ships rather than 3d models, since they don't require special 3d tools for users to mod. That said however, we are attempting to create the epic feel of large scale fleet vs fleet combat actions.

The problem we're facing right now is how to get that same epic feel from a real time game into a turn-based game.[/quote]
]Gratuituous Space Battles? It is neither overly ambitious or necessarily turn based. When you choose 2d over 3d it is understandable its all about budget and time contraints. But I am sure GSBs also dealt with these contraints and somehow managed a realtime epic feel.


I thankyou for your reply. As I mentioned before, I think GSB's approach is right on the money in terms of viability and still providing a grandness that is not restricted by the scales small productions such as these are limited to.

I hope for the sake of a memorable and neatly packaged effort that this game offers more than the budget efforts such as SEIV affords an avid gamer. I wish for something alittle more engaging visually than the trappings of so called "spreadsheets in space".

Kudos.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Well then may I suggest going the route of small budget space combat 2d realtime strategy game Gratuituous Space Battles? It is neither overly ambitious or necessarily turn based. When you choose 2d over 3d it is understandable its all about budget and time contraints. But I am sure GSBs also dealt with these contraints and somehow managed a realtime epic feel.


I thankyou for your reply. As I mentioned before, I think GSB's approach is right on the money in terms of viability and still providing a grandness that is not restricted by the scales small productions such as these are limited to.

I hope for the sake of a memorable and neatly packaged effort that this game offers more than the budget efforts such as SEIV affords an avid gamer. I wish for something alittle more engaging visually than the trappings of so called "spreadsheets in space".

Kudos.

PS: Please delete my last misspost, unfortunately this board has a expiry time for edits, which is quite counterproductive IMHO

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Yes, I keep bringing up GSB as an example of how strategic (i.e. AI-controlled) combat "should be done"... provide lots of options for the player to set strategies beforehand (i.e. more so than SE5), and then let the lasers fly! ;)

The trick with incorporating that into a 4X game is that it's not just a single fleet engagement - you might have your one fleet encounter several enemy fleets of different compositions on the same turn, and you don't even know what you're up against until the turn processes, at which point it's too late to set orders, at least in PBEM... in single player and network games, this could work, but then in those scenarios, you could even allow the player to control the ships if he so desires!

So for PBEM games, we'd have to have some REALLY complex fleet strategy options for this to work properly... conditional branching of strategies, or at least a wide variety of target prioritization and retreat condition options, taking the best from SE5 and GSB! This will definitely take some planning... input is welcome! ;)

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

I have great faith in the makers of SL to come up with a worthy game. But I would hate to see some terribly painful and overly complex turn based system that bleeds all the fun and excitement out of ship combat. To do this would neither be fun or engaging. Instead it would turn ship combat into a chore.

When I played Armada 2526, its ship combat was realtime but so poorly executed that I wanted the autoresolve button to take care of most combat. Its a shame when games fall into that pitfall. Because its signs of a poorly considered system, and not just budget constraints.

We the gamers and purchasers of your product understand you cannot reinvent the wheel so to speak but implore you take whichever shortcuts necessary and capitalise on 2D ideas like Gratuitous Space Battles. I am still a firm believer that even a small crew of programmers can be resourceful enough to come up with a very impressive offering.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

What do you mean by a "painful and overly complex" turn-based system? Something like MOO2's initiative system, which while it works well in smaller battles, makes long battles drag on forever so one is tempted to "Z the combat" (Z being the hotkey to autoresolve)? Or did you have something else in mind? Despite what Alikiwi said earlier, we're still not sure exactly how combat will be resolved (player control or AI control? turn based or real time?)... Alikiwi and a few other folks left the team a few months ago due to a disagreement on the direction the project was taking!

One interesting feature we're going to implement, though, and might be able to help us figure out how to do this combat thing, is that of "battlespaces"... Nick (Suicide Junkie) came up with the idea, and basically the way it works is, each ship or other space object, given an amount of time (1 turn, 1 "phase", or 1 "round", with phases and rounds being subdivisions of turns), has a certain "combat effect radius", wherein it can potentially engage in combat with other ships, etc. This radius is equal to the ship's physical size plus the ship's weapons range plus the maximum distance the ship can travel over that period of time.

Whenever a ship encounters an enemy ship within its combat radius for the turn, then, a "battlespace" is formed containing all of the ships involved (whose combat radii overlap). Those ships then have time "slowed down", and the battlespaces are checked again. If we're at the phase level and they don't overlap, then the game just goes on processing those ships at the slower time speed, to see if they ever do actually meet, or if they fly by each other. If on the other hand they DO meet at the phase level, then combat has officially been entered, and time is broken down once again, into rounds. This is where things get a bit murky - do we allow players to issue orders to ships in combat, or are combats autoresolved? If the player is involved, will it be turn-based or real-time? Or will all of the above be game options? We still have yet to figure that out!

In case that all sounds confusing, here's a couple animations that Nick whipped up a while back to illustrate the concept...
http://imagemodserver.mine.nu/nick/p...es/FleetsA.gif
http://imagemodserver.mine.nu/nick/p...es/FleetsB.gif

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Would something like a Baldur's Gate style real time combat system work? Here's I can foresee it...

- Keep ships and groups of ships as well as the speed of combat relatively slow, so players have time to think and strategize without engaging into a clickfest
- Allow players to use the mouse to click on ships or groups of ships to move them to a location or issue commands
- On the GUI interface (just below the combat screen), have several large command buttons with simple commands (i.e. remember the KISS rule!) to order a selected ship or group of ships. Commands buttons are as follows:

(1) MOVE (selected ship(s)moves to a given location subsequently selected with the mouse pointer);
(2) ATTACK (selected ship(s) attack a target that is subsequently selected with the mouse pointer);
(3) RETREAT (selected ship(s) flee by warping out or leaving the battle screen);
(4) SPECIAL (selected ship(s) use their special attack or defense (e.g. breeching pods with boarding parties, fighter wings, cloaking device, etc...))

I would also recommend having an option to pause the battle to issue commands in single player games (I would prefer that option, personally -- I like time to relax to think! :))

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

I think some of these questions would be made simpler if we knew how the game is intended to play. A game with SP focus can have a lot of functions that would make MP impractically slow, and if the game is meant to be primarily PBEM then questions about direct control of battles become secondary.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

I have to agree with Gregstorm on this one. If the fans here have no idea how this game will be presented, then it makes picking and choosing the basic combat system difficult to say the least.

Will this game play out like Star Treks: Birth of the Federaton Turnbased offering? That is the only game of this genre that I recall being multiplayer and turn based combat in a Masters of Orion style gameplay.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Well, sorry this isn't the most definitive answer, but right now we're still at the point of trying to be flexible in terms of singleplayer vs. multiplayer and network vs. PBEM... that's probably a significant part of the reason the combat issue is so thorny - we want to create a satisfying singleplayer experience without making multiplayer too complex or too different from singleplayer! I personally think strategic combat with detailed fleet setup and planning, but little to no player involvement once the battle's started (a la Gratuitous Space Battles) would be a good compromise, but then that might be my bias for multiplayer speaking! One idea that was proposed, though, was to do battles similarly to GSB as described, but in singleplayer and network games (but not in PBEM) to break the battle down into phases - say, every 30 seconds the game pauses and you can adjust your fleet's tactics to take enemy fleet composition and tactics into account!

Yes, I suppose that does imply real-time combat... sorry for the confusion about having "decided" on a turn-based system! Not sure where Alikiwi got that idea, and he's not working with us anymore... the whole combat resolution mechanic is really still up in the air; I'm just presenting here the option that came up and I remembered and I liked! ;)

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Thanks for the info. FWIW, I'm with you on the GSB-type battle planning.

As far as the SP/MP/network/PBEM debate goes, I'd definitely like to see the plan in advance concept used. I remember network MOO2, and in a larger game it could get very frustrating for nations at peace to wait for two players in a major war to resolve a series of battles. And as noted in posts above, if you're having battles on an epic scale (dozens of ships on each side) then taking direct control of a combat can become cumbersome.

It also offers the distinct advantage that battles can be resolved in the same way whichever type of game is being played. This means tactics learnt in SP games still apply if a player goes into MP, which helps avoid a potential barrier between the two game types.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

@Ed Kolis:

Too bad Alikiwi doesn't work with you guys anymore.
May I ask why? You're not asked to give too many details of course, I can understand that it is something not fit for the general public. Just curious.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Basically there was a dispute about what kind of game we were building (an SE4 clone, or a brand new game), and the folks who wanted to build an SE4 clone left, since Ken took the "new game" side.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

The "new game" side contained about all the programmers in the group, no wonder Ken choose them... you... whatever.

As far as I know the "cloners" formed another group, making their own space strategy game. I don't hear much about that though, it's a secret project bound by an NDA as I hear.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Been following this so thought I would chip in now we are getting some idea of possible combat format.

For me one system makes sense & from what you are saying thats set strategys at start & let the computer do the rest.
If you allow single player to change his tactics in phases the AI has to be capable (inteligence wise) to do so to or it always needs a far better fleet.
Why not apart from its hard program plug in behavior routines & let the player set 3-5 tactics at start.
By this I mean the following
Ships would be given routines based on there weaponry this would select the targets they chose in actual combat & may be modified possibly by orders.
Hence like I say plug in routines the ship follows.
Orders you could set up to 5 conditions in a queue ships would maneuver to try & perform them.
Attack Capital Ships, Bases, Heavy Weapon Equiped Ships, Fighter Screen
are some examples
The ships would try to do this but ship routines are what makes them sensible.
Based on threat level or to hit chance will engage other targets so a ship going for the base will automatically engage threats on the way.
Should also look at if a ships nearly down or its sheilds are & a good target engaging that instead so ships automatically group fire at a target.
Like I said the orders could be queued & better than examples once it carries out one (base gone as example) it switches to the second.
Or they could act as a priority with 3 giving a weighting to what it goes for say - base, fighter screen, capitals

This is by no means easy have to think of all the factors & program & would be best if can be edited or new ones added.

Earlier freighters were mentioned & capturing cargo so using this set some to engage escorts others with priority of targeting freighters engines.
Some weapons only can target subsytems & would need a high hit chance to be able to do so. Of course could still miss it simple second to hit determination if hits XX chance to hit normaly or get the subsystem.
Probably best done as a percentage of original to hit roll if 33% chance a weapon with a 90% hit chance would hit the system 33% of the time so if it rolls 0-30 got it 31-90 normal hit 91+ normal miss.
Could use to target other systems like sensors weapons sheild generators & they could have a diffrent chance to be hit. A small weapon say 10% of original to hit instead of 33% for the big engines.

As you say new game & strategy for combat please make ships so they can be diffrent, certain classes can only fit certain weapons etc to a degree.
Large ships will be easier to hit & detect for example but can carry bigger weapons fire control sensors ECM etc
(Think about this for a plug when players resolve combat in phases/turns
Talking simply to hit big ships (best firecontrol) could target everything better so they would be best guys to target the smaller ships & could open fire at range first.
The smaller ships could have if you like the same chance to hit a big ship as it has to hit them because its firing at a bigger target.
Adjust fire control so falls off at diffrent ranges & have it as the main factor for to hit modified by the weapon & ships become diffrent)
Needs some thought to get to work as even a low tech fire control should be good close up better ones probably gain benefits to range & size or speed & possibly more capable of subsystem hits.
You now have aplug in for some time in the future if people want more detailed combat system. Oh think about diffrent degrees or how you handle ECM & point Defence, effects just the ship or produces a globe. My opinion last is better ships can have overlaping fields efficency falling off fairly quickly. Could become very powerful though despite being more realistic sitting in the jamming cloud probably need fire penalties if over do it)

Anyway back to ships being diffrent could have smaller specialist ships they can put space over to carrying systems above their class/size. Theres your scout ECM AntiECM Missile/Fighter defence boats. They need to specialise due to energy requirments & aux power plants.

Small ships could also be faster more maneuverable but not have the range of big boys as not enough space for consumables. Perhaps only one way to jump etc etc etc. Bit of thought & theres a reason to buy diffrent ships & tactics you set at the start of battle depending on whats in your fleet.

As you are talking small universe with detailed systems (the far better way in my opinion much more absorbing) you can take advatage of ship characteristics.
Small can hide & manuver better in astoroid fields for example. The best guys to find them though would probably be the capitals with a big sensor pack but once detected these are not the guys to send in there.

Within a system also trade between planets (& other systems) could improve productivity be its food luxury goods ore etc.
Intercepting freight routes could cause problems on planet or take out the ore delivery & the shipyard workers are twidling their thumbs. Now laying siege to the planet to tough to take on so we will blocade it, where are the runners:) More strategic options to take it

One problem here possibly if using grand fleets route freighters need to travel in packs with fleet as an escort.
Or could be automated run seperatly for safety on quickest route then routine makes them possibly change course if one is destroyed. Player knows roughly where they will be running to start with, quickest route between planets.

Another thing as said new game route the Tech tree.
Lets not make it baffling & enormous & make it so you can select a tech press a button & it shows you the possible paths to it. Possibly with 2 options highlight it or collapse the tree & just show required path.
Any prequisites should be included.
Does anyone enjoy trying to figure out tech trees?

Also to stop the best path every time yawn or because you cant be bothered to figure it out more make it flexible.
Possible idea as said can nick freight retrieve ships with tugs have a chance to get salvage or upon invading enemy planet spies etc.
Once you get a bit of enemy tech you can research it (could fail chance of success based possibly on prequisites from your tech) & if succesful may or may not be able to produce it. Better I think is it opens up a new avenue of research for you.
Example if you salvage an enemy beam weapon chances of understanding (or research time) is based on how far along you are in beam tech.
You figure out how to combine it with one of your beam weapons & a new weapon is born.
Now the tech tree gets new branches depending on the foes you meet & you might have to wait till get some salvage before you can research it despite knowing its good.
Also opens the avenue of coming across a ship mounting something new you just might want to try & capture one relativly intact.

For added variety the discoveries you make from alien tech could vary give some % to the possible new paths & see what you learnt. Damn last time capturing that gave me a great weapon this time its given me a very minor benefit to shields vs it.

Sorry so long & disjointed just wrote down ideas as thought of them.
Something a bit diffrent please it would be really nice if you produce a game that is not a rewrite of some 70s game like 99% are. Better graphics does not cut it gameplay is what counts. Oh & an easy interface another modern day failure in many games.

As a futher thought as seen posts about research moons etc some could give diffrent benefits. Ore extraction colony is obvious but think out of the box Research centre might find organisms or a mineral that cures cancer improves food production gives bio tech allows water breathing absorbs radiation etc etc etc.
You then might or might not need to extract it & finding could open up another tech branch so the tree becomes specific to that generated universe. Or at least the chance of when you find it & why not have the odd catastrophie research went badly colony quarantined wiped out or mutates, space zombies:smirk:

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

I am also with you on the GSB type combat resolution. I think anything that doesn't detract from the real substance to this game is a positive thing. Combat for Turn Based games is always a sticky issue. For now I think you made the right choice. GSB is quite novel in how it sets a battleground and just lets the player set their basic formation up and worry less about other things. I wonder will the players be able to at least move the units around or head them off to one particular focus point in the battles?

Well it sounds like you guys are at least moving along from what seemed an unworkable impasse. For that I congratulate you fellas. I personally was really not looking forward to a SEIV clone. I hope your game proves to be a step in the right direction filled with engaging gameplay and innovative ideas.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Thanks for the encouragement! :)

As a side note, Nick (SJ) and I were just discussing a "tactical points" system - I suppose it could be considered similar to those found in some newer RPG's? - where in addition to a time cost, every command has a "tactical points" cost, where tactical points are generated by things like crew and computer systems, and gradually regenerate over time. I was thinking that crew would regen faster, but computers would store more, so crewed ships would be more flexible than computer-controlled ones, but have less endurance for sustained combat!

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

That sounds very interesting - how would it work in PBEM games?

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

Sort of command & control? In which case would think Elite units should get more than rookies making them more flexible in combat.

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

The combat AI would have to allocate the tactical points, instead of the player.

But, it looks like we're not going to use the TP system... too complex for a game of this scope, according to several team members! Looks more likely that we'll just have crew requirements that are evaluated per combat round/tick, so if you try to fire the uberlaser requiring 50 crew AND activate the cloaking device requiring 25 crew in the same phase, say, then only one of those commands will execute if you have only 60 crew, instead of the required 75! And computer systems might end up simply reducing crew requirements by a certain factor (e.g. each crewman counts as 10 for purposes of requirements).

Sorry for bringing this up too soon!

Re: Combat Mechanics
 

One thing I'd like to see concerning combat is the ability to change tactics during a fight. For example; when shields are down, change from short range to maximum range, or when ship loses 1/2 of its armor, go from med range to ramming.