View Single Post
  #8  
Old January 30th, 2001, 10:35 PM
DirectorTsaarx's Avatar

DirectorTsaarx DirectorTsaarx is offline
Major
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northern Virginia, USA
Posts: 1,048
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
DirectorTsaarx is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Space Combat - Observations and Questions (Aaron/Richard take note)

rdouglass: let me clarify. I meant that if the AI combat style improves (not just ship design, etc.) to the point where it can hold its own against a player using tactical combat, players could rely more on strategic combat for themselves. There are times when we all have to play in tactical, because the computer doesn't make the same decisions we would and loses even with superior firepower. My personal pet peeves are leaving a carrier at the far side of a battle while it launches fighters for five or six combat turns. This strings the fighters out too much, giving PD cannon a better chance to take them out; if the carrier kept moving with the already-launched fighters, the Last fighters launched wouldn't be so far behind and the attack density is better. My other favorite is when my balanced missile ship/beam weapon fleet decides to blindly follow the leader, so I either end up with missile ships at beam weapon range or beam weapon ships at missile range (that Last one really cheesed me off when attacking a planet once - all my ships stayed at range 12 because the missile ship had been designated leader; not a single beam weapon ship had a chance to fire, and the missiles weren't enough to destroy the colony, so I had to attack again).

Now, I agree that when using strategic combat in fleet vs. fleet situations, the fleet with better ships/better formation/better choice of "strategy" SHOULD win. And this should hold true no matter how good or how bad the AI is at strategic combat, since it all uses the same strategy file. HOWEVER, I have seen superior fleets take unnecessary losses because of silly mistakes; other than the ones I've already mentioned, I've also watched my ships fire on an enemy ship loaded with planetary napalm (obviously, there was no planet in the sector, otherwise I'd WANT to get rid of the planetary assault ship), just because it appeared to be the "heaviest armed" or "biggest" ship (not certain which trigger it was) and left the slightly smaller ship loaded with Graviton Hellbore V's alone long enough for it to do damage. In tactical, I would have left the planetary napalm ship alone (since it couldn't do any damage to my ships) and focused on the Hellbore ship. When the computer is smart enough to do this for me, I'll be much more likely to use strategic combat. Even if it means the AI is better at strategic combat too. Heck, given the fact that I occasionally miscalculate range or lose track of a fighter group or two, the computer may even end up doing a BETTER job, since it never miscalculates or loses track of a ship just because it's outside the "combat window". It would also be nice if "Don't Get Hurt" wasn't interpreted to mean "run to the nearest corner and wait for the enemy to surround you and beat you into flaming pieces of debris". Again, even if meant I had to chase the AI's colony ships all over the map too.

Oh - I've also had my OWN planetary napalm ship destroyed in fleet engagements because it didn't want to break formation and hide in a corner with the supply ship. At least the supply ship is allowed to break formation and hide...
__________________
L++ Se+++ GdY $++ Fr C+++ Csc Sf Ai AuO M+ MpTM S Ss RRSHP+ Pw- Fq->Fq+ Nd+++ Rp G++ Mm++ Bb---
Reply With Quote