Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

Okay, the title says it all. You're going to see a lot of yelling and screaming here and I might even hurt some feelings... In fact, lets start with that.

To you modders: Its great that you want to improve the game by modding, but how about we get the unmodded game fixed first. Had your energies been devoted to this, by your own modding but mostly by contacting Aaron and pointing out the flaws, I wouldn't be writing this. I am predominently a gamer, not a modder and new to PBW to boot, where I discovered most of these flaws. So, I have not worked at improving the game myself. Be assured, Aaron will get a copy of this post and another thread to come, as well as a more personalized letter directly to him.

Now that everyones blood's up, lets get the the meat of my disenchantment. (Note: virtually all that follows applies only to simultaneous games with strategic combat.)

Formations! Formations are just barely moddable, and just barely work. I almost wonder why they were put in the program at all. Maybe because they are just barely better than no formation at all.

First of all, if you want to play PBW, forget modding at all! You must use the default formations AS IS, either in the stock game or the mod you are playing. Whatever is on the PBW server is what you must use. PBW would NOT be willing to take everyone's custom formations and stick them ALL into formations.txt so we can all be happy. The size of that file would go beyond all reason and no doubt there would be duplications of formation names to add to the confusion. Now, if Aaron had set it up so your custom formations go into the .plr file then all would be well (better at least) but he didn't, so for multi-player, formations are but a footnote.

Now don't get all excited if the mod you're playing has lots of cool stuff in formations.txt. As you will soon see, it still won't work.

"So, Kim", you ask, "modding formations.txt would work great for solo play." Not so fast big boy. Yes it does work better, but... Well take my own experience:

I wanted to use and/or mod a formation to suit my style. I found one I liked, and made some changes to the shape to suit me and hallelujah! it worked. Then I wanted to put certain ship types in certain positions and so I modded that and hallelujah! it worked.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!! Wrong answer! Go to the back of the line. It decidedly DID NOT work!
The program insisted on placing any old ship in any old slot, completely ignoring my wishes. True, I did use some custom ship types, but many were also the default types. IE. carriers, troop transports, boarding ships. Not one, of even these standard types, was placed correctly... and NO! I will not accept the excuse that by adding new ship types I confused the poor program. These are simple &%^#@* text files. The program need only play a little matching game to get it right. Hell, I could write a simple program to do just that in Atari Basic in about 5 minutes! (Correction. The "leader" ship is always placed correctly.)

So, though you can get the shape you want, you cannot place ships where you want them. Just take all your great ideas and experience in this department and throw them out the window.

The Strategies Screen. I would say "don't get me started" but I'm gonna bull ahead anyway. (Note, all of my ships and units "break formation".)

Lets start with everyone's favorite: the "ram" order. Is there anything about this order that works right-- or perhaps I should say, as expected? Other than to say it sometimes does work, I can't think of a darned thing. My best guess is there is a Category unbeknownst to most of us that I will call "troop morale". It includes factors like chance of success, chance of cowardice, chance of a "cowboy" captain or admiral, etc. I would accept this possible programming feature except for one thing: I have NOT heard WORD ONE about morale in any official documentation, on these forums, or on the PBW forums, so I do not believe it! I think this is just a buggy order as are several others.

Again, my own experiences.

Situation one:
Mine layer with primary order "Don't get hurt", secondary order "Ram". As expected the lone mine layer (Cruiser size IIRC) fled to a corner and the batch of armed escorts chased it. Soon the minelayer was receiving fire but continued trying to escape by shuttling back and forth over three or four squares. Hmm, so I guess it thought it could still escape since it could still move around. Okay, barely acceptable.
Damaged but not dead, it survived and moved one more sector and was again attacked by the same squadron. This time, the escorts had it pinned in the corner, unable to move at all. It just sat there quivering while the escorts finally ripped it to shreds. My Lord! At what point is "Don't get hurt" unviable? Unable to move, or avoid enemy fire it should have resorted to the ram order! Or is the strength of the primary order so high it cedes power to the secondary very reluctantly? If you answered "yes" to this second question, you get the big BZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!! Wrong answer! Back of the line for you too. (See situation three below.)

Situation two:

Large fleet containing several Kamikaze ships vs. much smaller fleets over several battles. The smaller fleets contained everything from destroyers to base ships. The Kamikaze ships were all cruisers with primary order "ram", secondary "point blank" (they all had point defense weapons, so the point blank order seemed reasonable at the time).
NOT ONCE did a Kamikaze ship do its duty. Many were shot down, many milled around the enemy at close quarters while others remained at a moderate to long range (5 to 10 squares). Disgusted, I eventually retrofitted them to another type.

Situation three:

Task force from that same large fleet. Approx. 9 ships including a dreadnaught repair ship, completely unarmed, with orders "Don't get hurt" and "ram". (Yes, the same orders as the minesweeper in situation one!) This task force encounters a lone base ship.
As expected my fleet and the lone base ship approached each other. Surprisingly, so did the repair ship. I thought the program had stupidly sent it to the opposite corner, but no, it seemed to stalk the big opponent. Soon the damn thing rams the base ship! Lucky for me the line ships had hopelessly disabled it and the repair ship was able to finish it off. Damage to the repair ship was considerable but luck prevailed and the task force was able to rejoin the main fleet without delay.

Now, why did these two identically ordered ships in sit. one and sit. three do entirely different things? And how, despite radically different reactions, did they both manage to miss doing the correct thing? Needless to say I was/am beginning to think I'm wasting my time on the strategies screen.

Now for the biggie.

Situation four:

I won't say this cost me the game, but I will say it turned a spirited conflict between two large empires into a rout of my empire.
At Last I have found the fabled sphereworld and right under my nose it was, hidden in an obscuring storm. Bringing in my fleet of 20 plus ships including the key storm destroying ship, I set all the ship designs included in the fleet to "Do not fire on... planets, bases, bases (no weapons), satellites and mines. In fact the fleet was using one of these adjusted orders iself (short range, which about 25% of the ships in the fleet were using). Yes, I intended to blockade the planet and accept its surrender and the riches thereon, and yes, I knew my ships may take some fire as they went chasing after hypothetical transports or colony ships. But did they do that? Careful now, don't risk the BZZT!
Of course they did no such thing! The entire fleet went after the planet, the satelites and the two bases with a vengeance! Didn't cost me too much (maybe two ships) and I did cut the pop. in half. The real cost was depleted supplies so that when my big opponent attacked shortly thereafter, I had nothing left and was mopped up with ease. (My first quantum reactor ships were just coming Online then.)
Now, I don't know about you but "Do not fire on..." is pretty crystal clear. Kinda black and white. No room for interpretation. Rather "binary" don't you think? So WHY THE HELL was this too complex for a computer program? And don't tell me other parts of the firing order take priority over it! If the "don't fire on types" order isn't FIRST priority it is utterly USELESS!

These four scenarios are not exhaustive. There are several minor items that I quickly got used to but are decidedly unexpected.

You may ask if I'm sure about all this. Legitimate question. Lets just say I am as certain as is humanly possible that I made no errors. Doesn't mean errors aren't possible which may have caused these strange results, but you will have to go a loooooong way to convince me. I am morally certain that the strategies work poorly at best and once again I say, if some sort of morale or cowboy factor is included, I have heard zilch about it so I find it unacceptable at this time.

Lets go on to some miscellaneous items.

Here's a cute one, and not really a bug at all. I call it the "First Player Disadvantage". In any simul game, player no. l moves first. To be sure this can often be an advantage, but try chasing down a fleet moving the same speed as yours. Your fleet moves onto his fleet... and his fleet IMMEDIATELY moves away with NO BATTLE resulting. So, your fleet then moves onto his fleet and his fleet again immediately moves away. You can keep this up for a thousand years and never catch the bugger. Fortunately there are so many other variables that the situation rarely Lasts very long. I don't know what can be done about this or even if anything should be done about it. Just one of those quirks of the digital world.

Most everyone knows about colony modules vs. mine warheads I. Let me point out another. Massive mounted Wave Motion guns vs. mine warheads III. There may be more. I haven't checked. A bug that should be fixed. Very unbalancing and unbelievably unrealistic.

"Combat occurs every five days." I first heard about this on these forums and took it for gospel. I have not heard it from Malfador or Shrapnel. As it turns out, this is a fallacy. My example: My small fleet moved to an undefended enemy planet, arriving on day 17. It also attacked on day 17, when I expected it to attack on day 20. On day 18, a larger enemy fleet arrives and attacks my fleet on day 18. I expected it to wait till day 22 or perhaps day 20, but it attacked immediately as did my fleet the day before. In fact, my expectation was that no action at all would take place till day 20 with the hope that I would cream the planet before the enemy fleet creamed me. Perhaps it is that if both fleets were intact after that battle, the next confrontation would not take place for another 5 days but only if both fleets remained in that sector... Maybe...

I have seen too many examples of opposing ships/fleets sitting in the same sector for a turn or two and not fight at all beyond the initial battle. Sometimes they will fight two or three times in a turn, where one would expect 6 battles every turn. So, though there may be some truth to the five day rule, it is a long way from the bald statement "Combat occurs every five days". Examine your own simul games and you will soon see there are more holes in this "rule" than in Clyde Barrow's body.

There should be an easy way to group fighters. I once had a group of some 500 fighters all armed with rocket pods. In that configuration, they were able to do 25000 points of damage but only to one target! Talk about overkill! By the time I had them reduced to smaller Groups, the game was over. The same applies to joining together small Groups into larger Groups. It should be as easy as building fleets.

Well, I think I've stirred up enough sh** for one day. And I'm sure I'll get lambasted for this bit of nastiness. Go ahead, do your worst. I do believe I'm ready to defend my views.

(Please check out my thread "The Strategies Screen-- a Wish List")

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"Had your energies been devoted to this,"
In fact they WERE. If you don't like something, change it! We took the original game, and fixed, in our own ways, the things we didn't like.
Not everybody has the same vision of "improvement", and the truly ultimate mod is the one you make yourself.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is a very good point, and to my knowledge, it hasn't been brought up by anyone else.
Good job, send in the report, and beware the PBW opponents using it against you until the next patch. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Is it possible that they were trying to attack the missiles being fired at you? If your targetting rules include "seekers @ us" or "Seekers @ others", the ships may be trying to attack the missiles instead of the ships. Since they can't ram missiles, Point blank is the only option.

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am pleased to hear that. In fact, I'm sure yours and other modders efforts to improve the unmodded game have improved it greatly. You can see where my pet peeve stands and I will be doing my small part to see if that can be improved. Whether it happens in SEIV or in the hypothetical SEV, I don't know. If it happens at all, I will be pleased. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Seems to me there were no missiles involved, but there were fighters, so what you say may be true. This explanation points out the flaw in another way. Thanks!

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

Players, both beta testers and otherwise, have been complaining long and hard about many features of the game. For one thing, MM is only one guy and has a lot to do. But for another thing he has some very fixed ideas about how the game should be. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif So it looks like some things we would like will never be done. Ah well, it's the same with a company of 100 people, too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

[ May 25, 2002, 19:25: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

But the company with 100 people is controlled by distributors so it's the same http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

And on the ramming ships: I've wondered that too. All Ramming ships do are mill around for the first turns and when they decide to ram: the opposing side are already in range and shoot it down; it's as if their crew doesn't want their country to suceed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif which is a good thing for us.

On the planet: Don't know what happens, I've tried everything to get the fleet to not fire on planets; and it doesnt work.

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

Grandpakim, your gripes about Se IV military are not justified.

War is a messy business. "No plan survives first encounter with enmy" von Klausewitz (sorry for any mistakes/typos). Relax and imagine yourself as Roosevelt on December 12. You are a supreme leader of your people but still, you can not sort out every single ship position on every skirmish !
SE IV is a strategic game, not a some sort of Total Annihilation !

So, your critisism is valid but it is directed on negligible part of immense SE IV universe.

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">" unrealistic " ?? !!! .. methinks that you take this far too seriously.

Just a few things....

- A lot of this seems to amount to "my bamma-alang a ding-dong can beat your gamma flippity flop". All this exotica is neat, but sometimes I wonder what it has to do with strategy.

- That all of these pieces of software fit together & even seem to work ( sometimes ) is close to miraculous. It will be a while .. I think, before the best way to approach simultaneous movement, in a game like this, is worked out.

- Too much "modding" in the wrong places is an invitation for gamers to try to rig things in their favor. My guess is that what is simple ( at this scale ) should usually work the best.

woof !

Dog

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

Oh, yeah, I just remembered!

In the next patch that will not be a problem, since mine damage will stack. Two warheads will be able to destroy that MM-WMG together.

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is absolutely true ... about the real world. I wish I KNEW it was true for SEIV; I would prefer the "human" element be in there. But as far a I know, the game is supposed to work as advertised. If there are "human elements" like cowardice and a cowboy factor, Malfador has carefully kept it secret from me.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Kinda reminds me of the guy who died from nothing serious.

Dogberry:

For the most part, you lost me completely. If you care to, try talking down to my level.

S.J. Great news about the mine fix! Thanks for the info. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

K... sorry if I got a little esoteric. My points are:

This game is 99.9% pure fantasy.. "unrealistic" is a somewhat laughable description in this context.

Alot of what you are griping about.. will work itself out, over time.

I believe that .. just from reading some of the threads here, there is sometimes, a tendancy to idolise "stuff" .. over gameplay.

That's just my .02 cents worth.

cheers,

Dog

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

[quote]Originally posted by Grandpakim:
To you modders: Its great that you want to improve the game by modding, but how about we get the unmodded game fixed first.

Well, to be immodestly, in my AI testing I found many things that need/ed fixing and many of "my" suggestions even made it into patches (for example the AI_unit.txt). But Aaron can only do so much in his time and some things will just have to wait for SE5.

Formations! Formations are just barely moddable, and just barely work.

Yea, but one can live without them. But you are right.

The entire fleet went after the planet, the satellites and the two bases with a vengeance!

For a blockade use the "capture planet" strategy and "don't break formation". Works wonders and the ships will not bomb the planet.

Here's a cute one, and not really a bug at all. I call it the "First Player Disadvantage". In any simul game, player no. l moves first. To be sure this can often be an advantage, but try chasing down a fleet moving the same speed as yours. Your fleet moves onto his fleet... and his fleet IMMEDIATELY moves away with NO BATTLE resulting. So, your fleet then moves onto his fleet and his fleet again immediately moves away. You can keep this up for a thousand years and never catch the bugger.

There is no difference if you are flying into sector A and the enemy is leaving sector A right after you have entered it or if the enemy leaves sector A just before you move into sector A. Or is there? I cannot see the problem here.

"Combat occurs every five days."

Each month is separated into 30 days. These 30 days are divided by your movement points. The result is the day of the month you will move on.

30 days
6 movement points
Result: Movement every 5 days

30 days
10 movement points
Result: Movement every 3 days

Quite simple and quite realistic. It's the same system "Star Fleet Battles" uses.

I have seen too many examples of opposing ships/fleets sitting in the same sector for a turn or two and not fight at all beyond the initial battle.[QB]

Because you will only fight a battle if you are called to move.

[QB]There should be an easy way to group fighters.

I totally agree on this one but we won't see it in SE4 IMHO.

Well, I think I've stirred up enough sh** for one day. And I'm sure I'll get lambasted for this bit of nastiness. Go ahead, do your worst. I do believe I'm ready to defend my views.

We can talk about anything as long as one has a valid point (isn't trolling) to argue about. So why should we flame you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

IMHO .. if the placement of ships within a formation becomes more sophisticated..it should still adhere to some simple principles and variations thereof.

That is, heavies to the front & or center, lights to the flank, ancillaries & auxillaries to the rear. You can theoretically play with this a bit with such old historical formations such as "echelon left or right" .. or refuse flank .

Again, just my .02 cents.

Dog

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">First, Aaron has probably been just about completely buried in Messages from various players (modders and otherwise) over the Last couple of years (or more). The game has changed dramatically during that time frame. I have never seen a game where the players have had so much input into how the game works.

Second, people do not always agree on what the correct solution is. Read the "New Patch?" thread and its discussion of engine overloading weapons to see the problem. Other than to make it moddable (sp?), there is no solution that will make everyone happy.

Most of the points you brought up are not new. And, they are slowly being addressed. The big gripe with formations used to be that it didn't have enough slots for a large fleet. That has been addressed. As SJ pointed out, the mine issues are being addressed. There are still more issues, some of which may never get addressed, but it is not because the modders are wasting our time on our own little mods. (Of course, we are not getting paid to fix the game, so really, where we spend our time - a LOT of time - and energy is our own business, not yours.)

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tell us more about this AI_unit.txt file, please.

I looked in the /Data and /AI folders, and didn't see it, nor did I see any mention of it in the readme.txt or history.txt files....

My current patch Version is 1.49

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Tell us more about this AI_unit.txt file, please.

I looked in the /Data and /AI folders, and didn't see it, nor did I see any mention of it in the readme.txt or history.txt files....

My current patch Version is 1.49</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The AI_Unit file became a part of SEIV Gold, I believe with Version 1.67, though I could be wrong on the exact Version. It allows you to specify unit builds for different planet types after all facilities are built. It allows you make sure that you have some defences, as well as troop/fighter/drone production in outlying systems. There are a few hitches in it, though they are getting cleaned up. Originally, planets would try to keep building, even when there was no storage. The latest Beta Version seems to have cleared this up quite a bit.

[ May 26, 2002, 18:40: Message edited by: Alpha Kodiak ]

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

hmm, so someone finaly complained about the strategies and formations.

In my opinion the problems with formations begin when you insert non-war ships (carrier, transport etc). I have found a single solution to avoid formation breaking and is realy effective. What you need is to put at least one weapon, preferably with ROF 1 to the ship (any) and then go to strategies and edit the strategy of the fleet (or better - make your own) to not break formation with the given type of ships.
Works fine, though i think that planet capturing does not work in that case.

Planet bombardament is more complex issue.
From what i know that there are 3 things that should be accomplished that ships will not fire on the planet:
1. The planet should not have WPs (look below)
2. There should be a trasport carrying troops
3. Attacking ships should be in a fleet with "capture planet" strategy (or any of your own variations)

Now there is one exception.
If the ships do not have transport in their fleet but have the orders to not fire on planets, they will not fire only if there are no WPs on the planet.
If there are, they will fire untill they are all gone. If then there is no transport to capture the planet, they will just glass it.

Im not sure how right is it all, but those are my own observations.

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

Taera You should read the thread on Stupid combat.

I once lost a fleet due to the fact that the lead ship had no engines and the computer would not move the ships at all. So for 10 combat's the computer would come in and just destroy the flank ships. Combat would end and the ships would redeploy around this non engine ship and repeat.... I was not impressed to say the least.....

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

Just a question. It seems that when I get in fleet battles I kill them with few if any losses or they kill me with few or no losses. This seems to occure about 80% of the time. Are there multiple causes for this? Has anyone else noticed this situation?

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

Yea I have noticed that.

It seems to be all or nothing.

When you have the larger fleet battles then the results become more realistic.

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

Cause #1 is sequential, turn-based model of combat. One way or another, one opponent has a free turn to punch enemy and only survivied ships can fire back. Illustration: you and enemy have 10 identical ships that can kill say 5 ships in one round. Let's assume it is a warp-poit battle (ships are in range) and you fire first. 5 enemy ships are dead. 5 remain, fire on you and kill 2.5 (2 dead, 1 damaged) ships. Next turn, you finish enemy. Result: two _absolutely_ identical fleets, identical race bonuses, etc., but you kill them all with only 20% loses.

If only we could make it more or less simultaneous... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Ship initiative ala Moo2, anyone ?

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

that definitly makes sense within the confines of that example. But It is almost universal. It appears to be the situation in most games. And early returns indicate it happens in SEIV GOLD also.

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

There is no much difference between Gold and non-Gold in this respect. Gold Version is better because MM ironed out the order of movements, like defenders goes first. Still, somebody will move first and get advantage. Or disadvantage if it is non-warp-point battle and you close in and expose ships to enemy fire.

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

Hi,
I've been playing this game since Day 1 with a few of my friends (many many simultaneous games)...

I am also bewildered with the amount of swing battles where the results are all or nothing. I don't know that I've ever seen two evenly matched big fleets duke it out until only a few ships remain. One fleet is almost always completely routed. It almost seems that one sides's ships are triggered to act as if they were commanded by intoxicated pilots.
And quite often it is the player with the higher turn order who loses. I have moved and fired first many many times, and still got routed against an evenly matched fleet.
I asked my oponnent what he was doing, and I think it had something to do with ship /fleet orders. He really took the time to tweak them, whereas I only did so at a basic level. Given, I really don't think orders have been the entire difference. The underlying code driving the combat somehow produces lopsided battles. It still seems crazy that it happens.

And yes, this is frustrating after you have invested an entire game assembling a proud battle fleet, which gets whacked by a comparable fleet due to a coin toss. Afterward, the surviving enemy fleet is intact to have it's way with you.
If combat were a bit more even, you would have lost, true, but you would have at least inflicted fair casualties to slow him down... and he would be discouraged from advancing so quickly (his repairs must be made, and you would have time to throw together some ligimitate defenses.

We are just used to it by now, it's "How the game plays." Still, I do wish this could be somehow corrected a bit.

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

The all-or-nothing effect is largely brought on by shields.
Shields are the essence of all-or-nothing, since they regenerate fully after each combat.

You would probably be very interested in the B5 mod style of defenses, where it is all about armor.
Not perfect armor, either; shots will skip past your armor once it starts getting thin.

Since the defenses are mostly armor, every shot will do more or less permanent damage, and even your victorious fleet will have serious repairs to complete before pressing on to the next combat.

Re: Formations, Strategies, Etc. -- The Bitch List
 

The all-or-nothing effect is largely brought on by shields.
Shields are the essence of all-or-nothing, since they regenerate fully after each combat.
I am curious to know the proof and reasoning behind that statement