MP Minesweeper Designs? (and ideas)

[Jubala]

I'm wondering what people put on their minesweepers in pbem or other multiplayer games. I tend to put all the required stuff and max engines then as many minesweepers as possible. Any leftover space is used for ECM and armor if possible. Then I send these sitting ducks through a warppoint to clear the mines and the assaultfleet comes in the turn after.

At least that's the plan in one of my current multiplayer games. The first assualt through the warppoint in question met with total destruction of all ships from minefield damage (ouch!) so I am now reluctant to send all ships through at once as I don't want to repeat that disaster. But if my minesweepers clear the field they will most likely meet armed opposition and that, as they say, will be the end of that.

I want message drones my ships can send back through the warppoint to tell the assault fleet to come through and kick butt and I also want retreat options so my minesweepers can duck back through the warppoint to the safety on the other side after they complete their mission.

Actually, I want retreat options in general. I remember someone saying it was taken out (was in se3) because it was so easy to evade the enemy ships in a warppoint assault and after combat ended proceed by the defenses unharmed and generally bust up the neighbourhood. Here's what I'm thinking to adress that. Make it so the attackers ships(fighters are not restricted) in a warppoint assault can't move a certain number of squares away from the warppoint. That way they have to fight no matter what which will take care of that little problem. Or put no such limit in but don't allow them to leave the warppoint sector outside of combat if there are any enemy ships still there that was there at the end of the Last turn. Or both.

Retreating in a nonwarppoint sector or a warppoint sector attacked from an adjacent sector should be possible at all times imo. If you can outrun the enemy that is. If you can't you should be able to appoint a rearguard to play stopper in the bottle and take the heat while their buddies tuck tail and run. That's what escort ships are for. Provide distraction while the big boys run.

And I also think the battleboard needs to be bigger. If missile ships keep retreating from beamers they'll eventually come up against the edge and be pinned down and shot at even though they have the range and speed to stay clear of the enemy.

[Tomgs]

I haven't played PBEM games but isn't it possible to give your ship two orders? Like Warp then move back to the space you were in before the warp. Of course if there are ships waiting to attack you on the other side of the warp point you may not live to complete that second order. But if your ship survives and it has one movement left it should go back through the warp point.

[Talenn]

My feeling is that lack of retreat ability and the limited map area are there for game balance and should not be removed. It would be too easy for longer ranged weapons to stand off and pound shorter ranges to dust. That is precisely why missile ships are constrained by the 'artificial' border. If it wasnt there, there would be little reason to use other weapons.

Also, the lack of ability to retreat makes it so that you cant always escape until you have the advantage (at such time the enemy will perpetually run etc). It also makes it so that it is possible to intercept and and destroy marauding enemy fleets before they nuke your worlds. It tends to make more combat more decisive and that is how is should be IMO.

About the only way to get around this stuff would be a far more complex movement system that had 'turn modes' or vector thrust or somesuch to control continues retreat and fire abilities. I just dont see that as adding too much to a game at this scale. It would be neat to see, but I doubt that it would really make the game all that much better and would definately add to the playing time required for a game.

Talenn

[Jubala]

I agree it wouldn't be much fun being pounded to scrap by longer ranged enemies, but if that's the case you better get longer range or higher speed yourself asap. And a ****load of pointdefense if it's missiles we're talking about. As for catching marauding enemy fleets you have to do it with fast ships and/or fighters. Arm them with enginebusting weapons and they'll be slowed enough to let the big boys catch then.

I'm not saying that you should have automatic disengage the instant the desicion is made. It should take some time depending on the speed of your ship and maybe range to enemies. Kind of like in Stars! where it is possible to disengage but not certain it will succed. Or Reach for the Stars(I think that's it anyway) whose only redeaming feature was the ability to sacrifice your screening escort ships to save your capital ships. I just find it so annoying that my single cruiser has no choice but to make a suicide ramming run on 5 dreadnoughts because it can't run even though it is faster. Or for my capital ships taking a pounding retreat to fight another day. Or at least attempt to.
The ability to run would place a higher importance on smaller faster ships to pin the enemy down while the big boys move into range. Or block the enemy to let your bigger slower ships get away. I think it can done so it's balanced and playable.

I don't want it be like in Star Wars Supremacy (Rebellion) where the enemy instantly hypered out if the force concentrations was even slightly against it. I want it to be possible to run but I also want it to be possible to catch runners.

It could also be coded into the AI behaviour when it decides to run. Aggressive AI's would linger longer while cautios AI's would be more prone to disengage and fanatic AI's would simply bull in and take it.

[Noble713]

I want retreating back too, and for all of the aforementioned reasons. Having an imaginary border in space that things can't leave is very annoying. If you want to catch and destroy enemy ships, you shouldn't be able to trap them in the corner of a box but have to overtake them before they run away, just like in real life.

[This message has been edited by Noble713 (edited 22 December 2000).]

[Talenn]

Well, like I mentioned below, it has to cut both way. You cant add the retreat option because the imaginary boundary is 'unrealistic or artificial' unless you eliminate the 'unrealistic and artificial' movement system which has no inertia and grants the ability to change facing and direction at will.

The game simply will not work properly otherwise. Sure, you can build smaller, faster ships, but so can they. I suspect the game would degenerate down to a large number of 'mexican standoffs'. If you cant trap and kill the enemy, you will never have decisive battles. And the results will probably be far from your liking. It would certainly take most of the excitement out of the game IMO.

The only way it would work well is to needlessly (IMO) complicate the game. Without that, a large number of your weapons and tactics that are already present will be instantly obsoleted. Further, it doesnt lend itself very well to the 'ugo-igo' turn sequence of the combat. It would prolly need to be reworked into an impulse system or a si-move system of some sort. I just dont see that its really worth the hassle.

I do agree that it can be annoying to not be able to disengage at time, but the potential headache from 'dancing enemies' is not worth the bother IMO.

Still, it would probably be something that would fit well as an OPTION during setup...'Allow retreat from combat: y/n?'. That would at least please all sides, but I'm pretty sure that after a few games with that option on, most folks would start turning off again. The consequences for allowing retreat within the current game framework are very severe IMO.

Talenn