View Single Post
  #5  
Old February 2nd, 2001, 08:50 PM

Talenn Talenn is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 273
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Talenn is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Proposed \'Quick Fix\' for some Combat \'Anomalies\'

Barnacle Bill:

You are absolutely right from a realism point of view. But this is an abstraction, just like the rest of the tactical combat engine. There is no reason a ship could move in any direction it wants to without regard to inertia either, yet it's in the game...so one abstraction is demanded by another.

Also, like I mentioned, this is a 'quick fix'. It should require minimal coding and still addresses the concerns. Adding 'op fire' like in SP would lead to host of other issues, not the least of which is that (like in SP) you'd use 'useless ships' to draw enemy op fire and then kill them your 'real ships'. In a game like SE4, it could be heavily perverted due to the construction system...how difficult would it be to design a class of ships with nothing but shields/armor as 'op fire decoys' and then design mostly firepower ships to capitalize on it? This would lead to EXTREMELY silly tactics IMO, far outweighing any benefits that could be gained from the Op fire.

So, in summary, REALISM, has to go out the window every now and then to make the abstract game engine work. Its the same thing with the disengagement rules. Nope, it aint 'realistic' but the game does WORK with it.

Talenn
Reply With Quote