Combat Initiative...

[ColdSteel]

Talenn,

You make some excellent points. I suppose one major difference between SE4 and MOO2 tactical combat is the 30 turn limit on tactical combat sessions in SE4. In effect I suppose this in itself acts as a form of retreat if you can just Last that long. So, I agree that if the game is balanced for this, it's not a big deal to me. Really, it is more a suspension of belief thing. Maybe they can find a way to depict this inability to leave combat a little better than it is currently so it is not so visually jarring.

You make a good case for the current starting distances but I'd still like to see some variability in the starting distances. Part of being a great tactician is being able to adjust to the unknowns that are thrown at you in each battle. No two combat situations are ever exactly alike. Being handed the exact same starting distances each time detracts from something that should be a litte less certain, IMO. Think how much you'd desire and seek the initiative if it meant being able to determine the starting distance of the tactical or stategic combat at hand. I think it might put a little clench back in your stomach when facing the AI. Since you *would* be starting at long range much of the time it would still keep the tactics you mention in play and just intoduce a bit more uncertainty. A kind of "fog of war" if you will. Of course it wouldn't work at all without having the combat initiative added to the game. I do hope they add that.

I also agree they need to add the ability to scroll screens and a few other interface things mentioned in various reviews. Overall, perhaps I might just need to get more used to it.

Tomgs: Thanks for the tip. I'll try that. I'd speeded up animations first thing but was hitting the auto button which means having to keep hitting the end turn button constantly. I'll try your suggestion instead.

[Barnacle Bill]

My two cents worth on retreat & other tactical issues...what I'd do if I was the programmer:

This assumes turn-based play. "Attacker" = the side whose strategic turn it is. "Defender" = the side who's strategic turn it is not.

If the attacker is entering via a warp point, defender gets to set up first anywhere he wants, but without seeing what the attacking force is first. Attacker starts with all ships stacked on the warp point but can't leave them stacked (excluding any which lose movement capability as a result of defender's first fire). Defender moves first in this scenario, meaning warp point defenders get a free shot at their best range at incoming attackers.

As a note, in the various editions of Starfire (as noted by others, the board game inspiration for the SE series of games) the various rules editions & optional rules have handled the above differently. Sometimes as described above, with all Attackers appearing on the warp point together. Sometimes one ship appears each tactical turn. Sometimes the warp point size and the ship sizes together determine how many ships can come through at the same time. Sometimes you can exceed that but lose a certain percentage to "interpenetration", which is how the latest Starfire rules handle it. I personally prefer to let them all come through together, as the Defender has enough advantages without making them spread it out over several tactical turns (plus Starfire has no limit on the number of tactical turns per battle).

Mines should only work against ships transiting a warp point. It would not matter which end of the warp point was mined. If the Attacker enters combat through a mined warp point (hostile mines), the mine attack is resolved first (and no combat is initiated if the attacker is wiped out by the mines).

Other than combats initiated by warp point transits, Attacker should move first.

The tactical map should scroll infinately - no border, no "cornering" a fleeing enemy.

Any ship in the same tactical map square as a warp point and with at least one movement point left could retreat through the warp point (suffering mine attack if applicable).

Otherwise, retreat would be an option for any mobile unit if both of the following conditions are met:

1) It is currently outside enemy weapons range.

2) It has a tactical speed equal or higher than the fastest armed enemy mobile unit.

Retreating attackers must also have at least one strategic movement point left for the turn, even if retreating trough a warp point. Retreating defenders would be using a point from their next turn in advance. In both cases, this would impose a limit on how many times you could retreat in a single strategic turn. A fleet with a higher strategic movement rate would be able to avoid combat by continually retreating.

After combat, units which retreated then get placed one sector away from the sector they retreated from on the system map. This could potentially initiate a new combat.

[Crash]

I believe making weapon firing simultaneous would make the tactical combat system more fair, though I admit that it'd be even more tedious to have seperate movement and firing phases for each side.

About initiative and missile dancing, just don't dance. Launch your salvos, and take your licks. Alternately, if you believe the mechanics give you an unfair advantage vs the A.I., research different paths, try using torps or hellbores as your main battery of choice. Reserve any missile installation to satellites or other non-mobile units. Just my 2 cents.

Crash.

[Talenn]

Crash:

Of course you can simply choose not to exploit holes in the AI. I do it all the time in SE4. It makes for a far better and enjoyable game.

But I think it is something that should be addressed at some point. If it cant be fixed, then missiles should be altered in some way IMO. Players shouldnt be forced to not use certain mainstream weapons if at all possible.

As far the combat initiative goes, this is EXTREMELY important in MP games IMO. Going first is a tremendous advantage to have all the time and it really unbalances the game IMO. And it would certainly help the AI if it was allowed to go first in combats from time to time and I'm all for adjustments that will help out the AI.

Barnacle Bill:

As stated earlier in the post, retreat from combat would cause alot of problems on the strategic level of the game. I agree that intuitively, ships should be able to retreat from combat, but within the current game system its a bad idea IMO.

Picture this situation: Enemy fleet moves into a system where you have 3 or 4 planets. You have a defense fleet orbiting the main planet. The enemy is in range to hit a couple of the planets on their next move. How do you defend? If you attack the fleet, they simply retreat and then stomp on whatever planets they like. If you take away their movement the next turn you either 1) simply delay the inevitable while they tie down your fleet into attacking them every turn or 2) retreat is STILL pointless as you are locked 'strategically'.

Sure, you can always choose to defend the warp points but then why bother having the rest of the system maps? Just have Warp points and planets as that is all that will ever matter. No battles will ever be fought in space as the weaker force will always retreat. IMO, there is no way to implement a retreat system that cant be exploited given the 'IGO-UGO' turn system. Maybe someone can come up with one, but I seriously doubt one that isnt ridiculously complicated can fill the role.

Thanx,
Talenn

[evan42]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Talenn:

Sure, you can always choose to defend the warp points but then why bother having the rest of the system maps? Just have Warp points and planets as that is all that will ever matter. No battles will ever be fought in space as the weaker force will always retreat. IMO, there is no way to implement a retreat system that cant be exploited given the 'IGO-UGO' turn system. Maybe someone can come up with one, but I seriously doubt one that isnt ridiculously complicated can fill the role.

---

Actually, this problem has been solved in many other strategy games. I have been playing a game called Stars for a long time, and it too has a battle board (but much much smaller).

Basically, when a ship wants to retreat, it will take a fixed number of turns. So, let's say it will take 10 turns to retreat from a battle in SE4. When the retreating ship runs to the edge of the map trying to avoid the attacker. If the attacker can apply enough damage to the retreating ship before the 10th turn, it wins. Otherwise, the other ship will successfully retreat from the battle.
I am not too sure about the exact number of turns for a ship (with 3 movement points) to move across the battle map. If it takes 10 turns to do it, then we can make it 12 turns to retreat from the battle. That will give the attacker 2 turns to attack. If the ships involved has higher movement points, then it will take even less time to move through the map.
So if the retreating ships has higher MP than the attacker, then it might retreat without a scratch. OTOH, a slower or same speed retreating ship will have to endure at least 2 turns of attacks to retreat.

[ColdSteel]

Evan42,

I think that sounds like a balanced solution and would work. Wonder if MM ever tried that and, if so, why they didn't implement it.

[Talenn]

Evan and Coldsteel:

IMO, that would still not work. Dont get me wrong, I'd LIKE to see retreat be an option, but not at the cost of no longer being able to fight decisive battles. And that systems for retreats still doesnt solve that problem IMO.

Its nearly impossible to cross the tactical map in 10 turns (or whatever) let alone actually inflict meaningful damage. Even if you lengthened the time required to 15 or so, it still wouldnt be enough to stop someone from simply refusing to give battle if that was their intention (and it would be every time they felt outgunned). I think ColdSteel summed it up well if you interpret the 30 turn limit as the 'auto-retreat'. Maybe it should only end the combat in 30 turns if one side has pushed a 'retreat button'? If that was done, I'm sure that it would FEEL different and that retreat was possible.

No, something far more complex would be required I'm afraid. IMO it would require an actual 'inertia' movement system so you cant simply reverse direction at will etc. Then you could require a player to enter with 'x' base velocity (maybe based on their movement strategically beforehand?). If they could overcome or convert their velocity and then still be able to turn around and run, then fine. That would also give the enemy time to build velocity for pursuit etc. But that is adding whole new layers of complexity to the game--turn modes or whatnot and thrust capacity etc. It would be neat, but prolly aint gonna happen any time soon.

Given the current 'abstract' movement system, any form of retreat will be far too easy to accomplish before the enemy can prevent it and we are left with the strategic impasse that I mentioned below. Trust me, I've worked on many a turn based game system and its a difficult problem to solve. Even games like Age of Wonders (fantasy turn based) eventually had to adopt a system in which only the attacker could retreat.

The ability to force a decisive conflict MUST be present or the game falls apart. As of yet, I dont see how a system that allows the weaker force an easy escape to be able to still have decisive battles.

Talenn

[This message has been edited by Talenn (edited 01 January 2001).]