just one battles per turn
 

I would prefer that fleets could make just one battle per turn, not one for each move point. It should cost one MP (because you enter a new square) but the following battle should up use the rest of the MPs of the attacking fleet.

What do you think?

klausD

Re: just one battles per turn
 

IMHO I dont think that would really work. Whilst I appreciate that the "one battle per movement point" is a bit artificial, I think one battle per turn would be more open to abuse.

Imagine if a huge armada is bearing down on one of your planets. You need a couple of turns to get a defense fleet to save the planet. How do you stop the ravaging armada dead? easy, you just send 1 freighter or 1 colony ship to attack that fleet, and then surround it with 1 small ship apiece in each sector and hey presto, when it attacks this weak opposition, it gets stopped dead.

Just MHO

[ September 13, 2002, 11:01: Message edited by: Growltigga ]

Re: just one battles per turn
 

maybe you misunderstood me. I meant not one battle per turn per player. I meant one battle per turn per stack a ships.

klausD

Re: just one battles per turn
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, I'm sure he understood you fine. As I did. Even once batter per turn per stack of ships is still not a good idea. Due to what GT said. If you want a quick defense just keep attacking that fleet with 1 little cheap ship till you build up a fleet of ships to take them out. It was be a major exploit that the players could use to win.

Re: just one battles per turn
 

The tactic against this "defense" is easy. I just send out a small attack force in every of the sectors where the 1 ship defense fleets are lurking.
In this case small escort ships in the attacking fleets have an additional function. (building a vanguard which clears the path to the main attack objective)

The tradition of having just one attack per stack is very proofed in many games. I think such a rule will function very good in SE too.

Re: just one battles per turn
 

klausD, I can't for the life of me see why you only want one battle per turn. I can understand that it may seem odd if you are used to only one per turn, but tradition is one of the poorest reasons to keep anything.

In my opinion, multiple battles is much more realistic (if that word means anything in a game context) and opens up a whole new world of tactics. You must now plan multiple defenses and use your own ingenuity to limit your opponents attacks rather than rely on the game's coding to save you. Multiple battles encourages you to be an imaginative defender and allows you to be an amazingly creative attacker. What could be better?

Re: just one battles per turn
 

The reason I am for just one battle is my preference for "conventional" gaming systems. The existing system with multiple battles is not that bad, but its not perfect for me. Its too much the way computer game designers develope their rules.

But there are alot of good rule (move/combat) systems out there in the board wargame culture. The Last 30 years have been very productive. Instead of developing in short time a medium quality rule system, computer game developers should rather look at systems which are proofed and playtested for several years and try to adapt them to the own computer game.

Eg: One of the advantage of just one battle/turn/fleet is the necessity of timing an system invasion. As it is now you can invade several planets with just one big fleet in one turn, without having an advanced plan. With just one battle/turn/fleet you have to divide your fleet and develope an advanced battle plan before the invasion to achieve the same result.

klaus

Re: just one battles per turn
 

You might be able to nuke a bunch of small and/or undefended colonies to glass in one turn with one massive fleet, but why not? If they have the speed to visit each planet in a month, they can easily drop 50 self-guiding nukes as they zoom past to slaughter each colony.

If there are reasonable defenses, however, your fleet will take some damage. Damage to a single ship can slow the entire fleet to a crawl, and wreck your "smash everything with one stack" plan.
If they have engine-disruptors on a weapons platform, your fleet is almost guaranteed to be unable to attack anything else that turn. Null-space and shield-skipping weapons are also particularily effective.

It is up to the defender to make his territory harder to sweep.

Re: just one battles per turn
 

As it is now you can invade several planets with just one big fleet in one turn, without having an advanced plan. With just one battle/turn/fleet you have to divide your fleet and develope an advanced battle plan before the invasion to achieve the same result. "

One turn = one month. It's not unreasonable for a fleet capable of moving that far to hit several targets in a month.

Keep in mind that computers can process a LOT of numbers quickly, thus allowing rules in computer games that would bog down a board wargame.

Phoenix-D

Re: just one battles per turn
 

Pheonix, SJ makes a good point, if the defender makes it hard on you it can be difficult to wrap up (highest theoretical # at 12, realistically more like 3-5) planets then thats good for him, if he leaves them undefended what does he expect.

Re: just one battles per turn
 

What I think you are missing KlausD (I too am a big board game fan) is that most board games started (and copied) the one per turn rule because they assumed movement (of non-mechanized units) as a factor. We are talking about ships that are moving at x% of c here. It is not unreasonable for a fleet moving at x% of c to travel to a planet, turn it into glass and move on. If any part of SE should be limited to one battle per turn it should be when a fleet engages in a ground invasion. Now that would be difficult to code in a game I would think.

Re: just one battles per turn
 

"We are talking about ships that are moving at x% of c here. It is not unreasonable for a fleet moving at x% of c to travel to a planet, turn it into glass and move on."

Just to nitpick- *I* am moving at x% of C. It's a low %, but still. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Anyway, SE4 ships don't go FTL. However they are capable of crossing an entire system in one month at max tech, and that is FAST.

Phoenix-D

Re: just one battles per turn
 

As a old-school strategy boardgamer myself, I have seen a lot of different systems utilized. Some games are one attack/turn, some have different movement phases/impulses where attacks can take place, etc. However, a space game should "feel" different than a ground game IMO. There aren't any "zones of control" to prevent an opponent from moving past you in most space games, nor are there terrain features costing you additional movement points. Apples and oranges to compare the two in my estimation.

Re: just one battles per turn
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I cut my teeth as a child on classic board games, namely Starship Troopers, Advanced Squad Leader, Imperium Romanum, and Star Fleet Battles to name 4 of my Favorites. Most of these games assume turns Lasting seconds or minutes. Only one attack could reasonably be accomplished within that period.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I agree. SEIV, however, does utilize "zones of control" with the "Sentry" option. Blackholes cause usage of additional movement points. There are "terrain features" in SEIV that affect combat as well, such as storms. I think that individual battles could benefit from line of sight and even individual firing windows for weapons, borrowing from Star Fleet Battles. This would be cool to add to the present game and create what I would consider an even more satisfying combat experience. That is left for SEV, or at least I hope.

Re: just one battles per turn
 

There have been some comments about the "realism" of invading/nuking several planets per turn/month. Of course I can imagine a world/universe where this is possible. But IMO this is not really the question. The point for me is not the simulation of a pseudo-realistic universe. The point is to create a game which has more challenging core-rules than SE has yet. With challenging I mean rules which force me to make more and advanced tactical and strategic decisions.

Of course the game is good as it is now, but it has also its failures and its far from beeing perfect. My post was intended to show up one of these problems. I know there are a lot of people which are content with the core-rules of the SE series. Thats fully ok for me. I am not the guy who wants to put my opinion on everyones "head" (are these words correct? Dont exactly know because I am Austrian http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

I would wish Aaron would rework some of the basics of the core rules of SE5. And he should also be aware of some of the excellent board game systems out there. Why inventing an oval wheel when there is already a round one existing?

Things I like (and would not like to have changed) in SE are:

-The adaptibility of many game areas (modding)
-extensive design of war-ships
-tactical ship combat

Things I would like to have changed
-planetary combat
-units (fighters, drones, ground units etc.) as such. I liked the system of SE3 more, with fixed stats of units. It was simpler and had the same flair
-supply should be a resource (like organics)
-just one battle per turn/fleet
-simpler diplomatic model (one of reasons the AI dont work good is that the diplo model is not really thought out very good. There are too many choices which dont have much impact in the game)
-people which operate facilities
-better immigration rules
-more and more dangerous internal problems (rebels, pirates, dangerous technologies etc.) to force the player to have internal security fleets and units.

Ok thats a few of the changes I would suggest.
KlausD

Re: just one battles per turn
 

-planetary combat

To what?

-units (fighters, drones, ground units etc.) as such. I liked the system of SE3 more, with fixed stats of units. It was simpler and had the same flair

Must disagree. There is a LARGE difference between fighters armed with guns, and fighters armed with rocket pods! Especially in mods. Same thing for the other units.

-supply should be a resource (like organics)
Ehh..

-just one battle per turn/fleet

Must continue to disagree, it would lead to cheap crap more than anything else IMO (line the system with one-engine escorts!)

-simpler diplomatic model (one of reasons the AI dont work good is that the diplo model is not really thought out very good. There are too many choices which dont have much impact in the game)

Also disagree. Removing something just because the AI can't use it is bad. Just have the AI ignore it if that's the case!

-people which operate facilities

Ehm.

-better immigration rules

Hmm?

-more and more dangerous internal problems (rebels, pirates, dangerous technologies etc.) to force the player to have internal security fleets and units.

Maybe.

Phoenix-D

Re: just one battles per turn
 

Actually, regarding the "One-battle-per-turn" thing:
That IS included in SE4. There is a tech to get around it, though: Multiplex Tracking.

Each vehicle can only attack once per combat round, except for opportunity fire (point defense). With multiplex you can divide your firepower into a few attacks each round.

A lot of those changes can be modded:

-planetary combat
I have modded it so that it Lasts years, and reinforcements can be added from both sides of the conflict...

- Units
You like the complex ship design, but not units design???
Whatever. You can easily mod things so that only one component can fit on each unit, and that one component has all of the fixed stats for a particular tech level.

- Supply is a resource
I've done this for P&N PBW (v2.6)

-just one battle per turn/fleet
Very silly, IMO. These ships have an entire month to fight various battles. But you could give ships 1MP max, and play that way, if you really want to...

-simpler diplomatic model
It is already pretty darn simple. LIke you, hate you, treaty level X, give stuff.

-people which operate facilities
See Proportions, P&N, all kinds of mods do this.

-better immigration rules
If you mean the shipping around of billions of people in a single huge transport, see Proportions.

--more and more dangerous internal problems (rebels, pirates, dangerous technologies etc.) to force the player to have internal security fleets and units.
Intel typically does this; Planets deep in your empire can rebel. You could add random event rebellions, and pirate attacks, and whatnot...

SE4 is what you make it.

[ September 17, 2002, 21:08: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

Re: just one battles per turn
 

SJ,
planetary combat:
maybe it can modded but not in the way I want it to have. Just simple.

units:
your argument is a very good one. Why do I want to have units with fixed stats, while I like at the same time the ship-design?
The reason I would like to have units changed is that for me units and ships are different parts of the game. Units are not just "little" ships for me. They are rather mobile components and they should be treated like this. Sometimes fewer options are better than many. And for units I think this is true. Especially the design of ground units is not really the time worth. I liked the system of SE3 and its predecessors where you had just premade Fighter I-XII or so. It was clean and easy for the player to modify and AI to comprehend.

supply as resource -
If you have already modded this I am wondering that there are posters at this forum which want to have this feature too. Are these all people who dont try your mod? I will try it the next time I am setting up a new game. (Does your mod provide manual resupply and supply-warehouses?)

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">-just one battle per turn/fleet
Very silly, IMO. These ships have an entire month to fight various battles. But you could give ships 1MP max, and play that way, if you really want to... <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I dont know what is more silly - my wish or your proposal?

-people which operate facilities - all mods do this? I just tried the TDM mod, but there was nothing in this respect. Maybe you misunderstood me: I meant: population which operate facilities.

-with better immigration rules I meant good rules for having alien population (conquered or immigrated) in the own empire. (realationships between your race and the foreigners, living- conditions of the aliens etc.)

-internal problems: maybe with modding you can increase such events, but this is by far not enough for me. Eg modding as good as it can be dont force an empire to have internal security personnel and fleets.

klausD

Re: just one battles per turn
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">TDM is not a mod, its the must-have collection of improved AIs.

Proportions, and P&N and a few other mods do it, not ALL.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Perhaps a better definition of "Planetary Combat" is required.

Do you mean combat while attacking planets, or the combat between troops dropped on the surface?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not everybody has played P&N, and the supply = resource Version of P&N cannot have AIs playing it, so it is not very well known.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sorry.

I think the whole scale of things is off here.
In a month, an army could easily attack many cities, or even sweep through a small country.
IMO, the "one attack per turn" type rules only become "realistic" at the tactical combat level.
EG: Do you shoot at the missile base about to reload and fire at you, or the Cruiser bearing down on you with Ripper Beams?

Re: just one battles per turn
 

Where to start?
1)Phoenix-D: thanks for the *I* correction.
2)DocShane: Have you tried games like Imperator? That’s where I “cut my teeth”. Supremacy, StarFire, Axis and Allies, the list goes on and on.
3)I agree with DocShane’s point that “Most of these games assume turns Lasting seconds or minutes. Only one attack could reasonably be accomplished within that period.” That to me seems to be a point we are all missing. The fact is each turn of SE IV assumes one month, err I assume it does anyway. Is this in any of the documents? In one month a fleet can accomplish a lot. Even a fleet constrained to sailing on water could do a lot in 30 or so days, much less sailing in space.

Re: just one battles per turn
 

"1)Phoenix-D: thanks for the *I* correction."

Any time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

In case you somehow missed it, and didn't get that I was being a sarcastic overly-detailed person:

I was refering to the fact that any object is moving at %C at any given time, including myself. (The I, the * being empathis)

Phoenix-D

Re: just one battles per turn
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It would be difficult to engage in battle without slowing down, maneuvering, and speeding back up after the battle. I think multiple battles should be possible, but that each engagement should use up an extra movement point for the attacking fleet. A ground invasion would require the use of an additional movement point. For example, a fleet with 7 movement points could move 7; or move 3, fight, and move another 3; or move two, fight, move one, attack a planet including a ground invasion,and move one more.

Re: just one battles per turn
 

SE4 ships have the uncanny ability to accelerate to full speed instantly, and make 180 degree turns without slowing.

An adjustable movement-point cost for executing an attack might be good. However, how do you tell the difference between someone attacking, someone defending themselves from attack, and two fleets that happen to bump into each other while moving around on other orders?

Re: just one battles per turn
 

SE4 ships have the uncanny ability to accelerate to full speed instantly, and make 180 degree turns without slowing.

SJ, I thought you knew that that was down to 'advanced handbrake turn level 5' technology that everybody gets automatically unless you disable it specifically in the game options

Re: just one battles per turn
 

I though that the supply use would keep a fleet from attacking to many times in a turn/month. Of course with higher tech you can offset this problem.

Re: just one battles per turn
 

In the B5 mod, supply restrictions would force most common designs to fight only one battle per month. If that becomes a problem in game, the player can simply mount more reactors on the ship...
Of course, in B5 you would be certaily fighting the second battle with a fleet full of partially damaged ships (no shields, all leaky armor)

In standard SE4, a ship can fight at least 4 typical battles before running out of supplies.
I once had a Dreadnought take on 10 lightly damaged enemy dreads, though, and my ship nearly managed to finish off all of them before running out of supplies. Fortunately, reinforcements arrived in the nick of time, and saved the day!

In an evenly matched battle, however, one side would be long dead before the other ran out of supplies.

Running out of supplies in space is much more dangerous than running out of supplies during a ground campaign on a habitable planet like Earth, so ships carry many more supplies that you would expect a comparable ground force to carry http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: just one battles per turn
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Well, should you make a differance? Wouldn't the combat use up movement regardless of whether you were attacking or defending, or even intended to be involved at all? Just make it an adustable movepoint cost for combat period. Then KlausD can make a mod and set that value to 99 or whatever and will get what he wants. I for one like that idea. Although I don't agree you should only be allowed one combat per month, I can see why it should cost more movement than straight and level flight.

Geoschmo

Re: just one battles per turn
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Each turn is 1/10th of a year; people have gotten in the habit of calling that a "month" for convenience.

Re: just one battles per turn
 

Capnq thanks for clarifying that point.

Phoenix-D: “Sarcastically overly detailed.” No, point in fact you are correct and I am sure any physicist would back you. As for me I can’t tell you much about Physics but if you give me your DNA sample (I would need a complete and ACCURATE breakdown of the human gnome) and a full detail history since your time of birth I could predict when you would be sarcastic. Long live Psychology!!

Re: just one battles per turn
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The big problem with charging a movement penalty for defending is that somebody can attack you with 10 separate waves of unarmed escorts, and bleed away all of your attack fleet's movement points.

Re: just one battles per turn
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The big problem with charging a movement penalty for defending is that somebody can attack you with 10 separate waves of unarmed escorts, and bleed away all of your attack fleet's movement points. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think you mean if somebody plays simultaneus game, I am right? I never tried this, because I prefer traditional gaming (no surprise http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )

I like the idea of additional costs of MPs per attack (only in classic turn based) very much. Its better than my "1 battle per turn/stack" thing.

If you want to advance the whole concept a little bit more:

The amount of additional MP cost could be moddable and modified by race advantages and/or technological advances.
If the MP amount for attacking an enemy position exceeds the the rest of the MP allowance of the attacking ship/fleet then the attack should be allowed. (using up the rest of the fleets MP)

Eg fleet A has 6 MP and wants to attack 3 adjacent squares with an enemey fleet in each square. Lets say attacking a normal square with an enemy costs 2 MP. The attacking fleet is 2 squares apart from the first enemy square. It uses up 1 MP for the first empty square then 2 MP for the first attack, then 2 MP for the second attack. Now only 1 MP of the 6 is remaining. The attacking fleet can now attack the 3rd square with the 3rd enemy fleet within using up its remaining MP.

In this matter we can even go further. For example some squares could be more costly to attack than others. (Eg squares which content nebulas, planets, asteroid fields etc. due to more complicated pre-battle plans and astronomical calculations etc.)

And even more, attacks of bigger fleets could be more expensive then attacks of small fleets, due to the fact that coordinating big numbers of attacking ships is more time intensive than coordinating small numbers. This would lead to advantages in splitting up big fleets in smaller more flexible ones (interesting thought)
Again with technology this disadvantage could be modified.

Again this is IMO only reasonable for classic turns not for simultaneous turns (which I dont play and therefore cannot evaluate)

klausD

Re: just one battles per turn
 

Klaus, I think what others have pointed out though is if SEIV were a true "classic boardgame" style of game, each turn would not be one tenth of a year like it is now. If it were a classic board game style each turn might be more like one day, or to strictly equate it to current terms on 300th of a year. Then each turn you would calculate whether or not a fleet had enough movement to do anything. If a fleet was moving at a speed that would take 5 days to move one sector on the map (About a speed 6 fleet in current SEIV terms) they would only be allowed to move every five turns. A faster fleet would be allowed to move more frequently. But all moves would still only be only one turn. Unless you had a ship that could move more that 30 spaces in a turn which is not possible under stock SEIV, and actually is not possible in simultaneous SEIV at all because of a bug.

Under such a system if on a particular day you could move the fleet, and you moved into a sector with an enemy fleet you would do combat. You would have your one combat per turn in effect.

Such a systm would be very difficult if not impossible to play via email turns against other people, although it might be workable for hotseat, TCP/IP or solo play.

This is in effect what is happeneing during simultaneous turn games now, but you only get to interface with the game and change orders every 30 "turns".

What we have now is not really multiple combats per turn if it were translated into classic boardgame style. What we actually have is that you are doing multiple turns at a time.

Geoschmo

Re: just one battles per turn
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think most of the people who talk about the "supply as resource" are looking for a way to have the planetary resupply depots (and, possibly the ship-based quantum reactors) only generate a fixed amount of supplies per turn; in addition, they'd like the ability to transfer supplies in chunks (the manual resupply you mention). IMHO, there is no way to mod those two functions. I haven't tried P&N, so I'm not certain what SJ has done about making supply more like a resource, but I'm almost completely certain he hasn't been able to mod the two functions mentioned above. The closest you can get to generating a fixed amount of supplies per turn is to use the solar collector ability, but that generates supplies based on number of stars in a system, and so can only come close to providing what we want. And, to my knowledge, there is no way to perform manual transfers of fixed amounts of supply (i.e., create a supply ship carrying 8000 supplies, and then transfer 5000 of those supplies to an attack ship, completely filling the attack ship and leaving the supply ship with 3000 supplies to get back home).

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I assume you mean like they had in beta testing? Where you needed to have 50 million people on a planet to operate each facility? There's a discussion about that somewhere on the forum, and it turned out to be pretty annoying. If you could choose which facility to operate each turn, it might be OK, but I don't think there was a way to decide each turn whether you'd run (for instance) a mineral miner facility or a space yard.

What many people do is change the production bonuses for population. Both Proportions and P&N offer production "penalties" on low population planets (something like operating at 10% production rather than 100% production; so a mineral miner on a low population planet only generates 80 minerals per turn instead of 800). And many people have added more bonuses for really high population planets (like ringworlds and sphereworlds). So you can get the effect of "population operating a facility" without the annoyances discovered in beta testing. I can imagine a situation where you have enough population to operate a single facility on a particular planet; that planet has a resupply depot, a space port, a mineral miner facility, and a space yard facility. Now, since you can't choose which one will operate on a given turn, you'd better hope the game engine chose the right facility. I'd be willing to agree that it could add an interesting bit of strategy to the game, but ONLY if you can choose which facility is operated, AND can change that decision each turn. And besides, the game has enough micro-management already; do we really need more?

Re: just one battles per turn
 

Geoschmo,
why do you think that the time frame Aaron gave to SE4 is important? The idea that 1 game turn is a "month" is just an abstract measurement to have some flair. Nobody knows what "1 month" really is. (especially to 10legged aliens) 1 Month could be in our real earth time 4,54 years or just 4,54 days, who knows? Its pure speculation that in 1 month a fleet can achieve this or this. If in reality something like space combat or planetary invasion would exist, nobody knows how long such an action would Last. It could Last decades to conquer a whole planet or to fight out a space battle. With advanced technologies it could Last just several days. But this is also pure speculation. The time Calendar Aaron put in the game is just for fun, it has no meaning for the rules at all.

The move/combat system Aaron uses has been used before several times before. (In the Games Workshop game "Space Hulk" or in the SF-computer game "breach" for example) so I cannot follow your argumentation that in a "real TB-game" the current SE action/move system would have been something different. Above there are classical examples that it is a system which has already been in use several times before.

Director Tsaarx,
Manual supply: I thought already that there is no possibility in SE to mod this feature. (all in all you had to program a seperate pop up window which is used to distribute the supply points) I regret this really. Manual supply would have been a good feature for SE.

Population needed to operate facilities: I meant that every facility should require a certain amount of pop to operate it. For example I have 4 pops on a planet. I build 3 mines, each of them need 2 population to be active. This means that 2 mines are active and one mine-facility is not active.
This is the basic premise. But the definition what active is and what not, should be a further point for discussion. Regarding the special needs of SE I would say that facilities without the needed population could also produce a certain percentage of its job. (lets call it "automatization rate") Eg the third mine without the required pop in the above example is not fully functionally. It could have an auto-rate of 50%, which means that the mine produces 50% of normal (population supported) production rate. This is necessary IMO because in SE you have in the beginning to few pops on the planet. The build up of planet would be too slow if there is no auto-rate which produces at least a certain percentage.
(on the other hand, Aaron could of course handle population in SE5 as a rather linear number - like MOO2 - this would be easier and very clever. I think the non-linear handling of population was also a reason that the beta testers did not like the use of pop operating facilities)

Of course there could be technologies or racial advantages/disadvantages which modifies such automatization rates of a players race.

bye
KlausD